Do belief systems deserve respect?

This idea emerged from an advice from Pipes75:

Now, I have certain problems with this offer. I will try to formulate my borders:

First of all, when I say “belief systems”, I mean “any” belief system, especially the ones that bother more than one person; such as religions, ideologies, economic plans, anything…

Secondly, the concept of “deserving respect” is not an empty demand. Respect might be working in different levels; we can respect nature, or we can respect other people’s existence and life styles, we try not to harm them in its minimum level. However, “deserving respect”, should require more than individual empathy: It follows some expressions of mutually showing, expecting, receiving, and coding this “respect” as law, code of conduct, protocol, tradition and as a rule sometimes.

Thirdly, I must clarify that I exclude individual extremes as objects of respect: For instance, I do respect the concept of neighbourhood, my neighbours and their life-styles. If any one of my neighbour starts to terrorize the neighbourhood, this can only mean one thing: he/she doesn’t respect what I valued in the beginning, he/she lost the ground. In this case, he/she is not, and can not be subject to any respect, even though I still show respect to rest of my neighbours, as much as concept of neighbourhood.

I think the trickiest part of this issue is the separation of a formulated belief system from its followers, advocates. Because no matter what they believe, feel, or appear, they are all human beings. And certain rights of human beings are clearly of utmost importance for our civilization: right to live securely, right to exercise their basic rights such as freedom of expression.

Yet, when an idea and its applications challenge to, such as racism, or slavery, or sexism, we tend to go back to the original rights, and check out the position of problematic state according to basics: These ideas have eroding effects and they undermine the equal rights, and degrade the human dignity and existence, therefore they should not deserve any respect.

How to answer the original question? How to position individual religious belief systems (Christianity, Islam) within the politics of respect? Do they deserve-what?

P.S. This thread is specifically designed for “Ethics, morality & Justice” sub-forum, since the core question of the topic is “respect”.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

People deserve respect, but beliefs do not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How helpful! So, we can bless racist while we show no tolerance to racism? Is that so? How can you separate belief systems from socio-political mechanism of "respectful" people? Any method in your mind?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If a racist is otherwise polite, why can't we respect them? The racism is the problem, not the person. People can learn and grow.

 

You can respect someone as a human being while considering many ideas they believe in to be idiotic, misguided, or just wrong. Treating them with respect allows a reasonable discussion of the issues and may even offer a chance of mutual understanding. Dismissing them because their beliefs differ from yours results in a hardening of positions and flame wars (on the internet), and sometimes real wars in the real world.

 

Can you materialize any performing thought without the existence of its performers? Why don't we actively stand against cannibalism? Is it because the idea has become an acceptable one? Or is it because we can not see widespread exercises of this culture anymore? Why don't we oppose Aztec human sacrifice rituals? Is it because they are polite; or is it because the practice and its belief mechanism are ancient ones?

 

I agree to some degree with you difference with the other people, but you are choosing ideas that were acted upon with violence. Should people who think that the Iraq War(s) were immoral - these were based on ideas and led to violence - disrespect, as their overall reaction, anyone for the war?

It doesn't have to be a digital response. One can have less respect, given certain opinions, but a generalized respect for the person as a whole.

So I do agree. I think we cannot simply love the sinner and hate the sin - to throw out the Christian version of this. At the same time, one can disagree with someone and still respect them, if to a slightly to significantly lesser degree.

And, in my mind, if their beliefs do not lead to hurting others, I see no reason to lose any respect for them, even if their ideas are what you would call nutty.

 

I stated in OP that respect to human beings as existing creatures with certain undeniable rights are core elements of our civilization. No discussion on this point. My question is about the code of respect for belief systems: For instance, a believer will evaluate the rest of the humanity as believers and non-believers, within the context of believing in God. And this is not an innocent division like "you support this team, and I support this team". As you mentioned clearly, this differences in belief result in "sometimes real wars in the real world" (although I can suspect from other reasons such as economic conditions or differences in life standards and other material elements too).

And how about if the subject belief undermines the core elements? Such as position of women among society? A religion might claim that women are inferior just because they are biologically (or even mentally) different than men? Can we respect such an understanding under the title of "belief"?

 

Not tricky at all, quite easy actually. However, to theists, they consider their religion to be one of their arms or legs. They are entirely at fault for not being able to separate their ideology from themselves. The ideology or religion deserves no respect whatsoever as it does not offer respect itself. They are free to express their ideologies just as we are free to mock them.

No respect, none, nada, ziltch. Since their religions have no respect for us, in fact, their religions would see us burn in their hells, why should there be any respect for them.

 

I have no idea what you are asking. I would respect a former cannibal, but not the practice of cannibalism. I would respect a person of Aztec descent, but I don't have to respect the religion that sacrifices humans to their God. People in general should be treated respectfully, unless they give you reason to treat them otherwise. Ideas, however, are not people, and should be judged on their own merits. For far too long society has maintained a custom of respecting religious beliefs simply because they are religious in nature.

 

This reflects my question. On what basis is it "acceptable to respect religious beliefs simply because they are religious in nature?" What does this nature tell us about traditional respect towards religions; since this "respect" provides a legitimised base for followers, no matter what this or that particular religion demand from their followers. I will expand the question with another example: If some atheists, agnostics, or humanists decide to declare their beliefs -or world views- under the title of "religion"; would their position become a respectful set of ideas by believers? I know it's against the nature of non-believer's standing point, yet I ask again, would that make it acceptable due to its new title as "x religion"?

 

You can maintain respect for someone, and not have to judge a person, and still be able to do your part to prevent others from causing harm.

Another persons belief should not effect you unless you allow it to. It doesn't matter what we believe as long as we are respectful to eachother.
You should respect a persons right to believe whatever they want too, hence respect their beliefs - and if you don't believe the same things, and you can't figure out why people believe in such things; you can try to understand rather then disrespecting or you can remember 'to each their own'.

As far as religion goes, it is spiritual guidance. It is not a history book of the physical. If you want to understand the benefits to religion, you'll need to understand spirituality. Religion still has many problems as well, but you seem to be aware of the problems, and blind to the benefits. Myself I am not religious, I am very spiritual - and I see both sides to everything.

Everyone is responsible for themselves, even if not everyone thinks they need to take responsibility for their actions - eventually we hold ourselves responsible for all our actions, so learn from the mistakes, don't dwell on the regrets.

I've got love and respect for everyone, but I can still intervene whenever I feel it is neccesary - I don't need to disrespect or judge others when I intervene, I know not everyone handles their emotional states very well, and many people don't have respect for others. But two wrongs don't make a right, so I choose to even respect those that don't know how to respect back, but I also choose not to tolerate disrespect if it puts others in harm.

As for the extremes - we need them. Without both sides of the extremes we wouldn't know, feel, or understand our comfortable place inbetween. But when extreme actions put others in harm because of a lack of respect, it is not tolerated.

I don't mind having a friend that is homophobic that has a belief that all gay people are confused and lost - but I do have a problem if he were to attack gay people with his belief. He is still respectful of the alleged lost or confused beings underneath, even though he has strong beliefs against their lifestyle.

My parents are against 'being on the system' yet one of my best friends has never worked for an extended period of time, ever! After getting to know this guy, both my parents think he is a great friend, even though they don't like his lifestyle. They still respect his choice to live that way. He's a surviver, but he's a scavenger

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Their are many possible examples, those 2 are both true examples in my life of people that still respect other people even when their believes contradict.

If you can stay respectful, and you have a willing participant, you can ask questions, but don't expect people to change their beliefs because you don't understand them, that will never happen.
And don't push too hard because no one fully understands all the spiritual things, so expecting answers in the form of factual evidence won't happen either and some might shut down if they feel you aren't staying respectful.

I suggest talking to Lori if you are interested in religious spirituality. She is open, and not afraid to share.

 

Try reframing the question like this:

Should everyone think in only one way? Should atheists be allowed to express their views where they are a minority or should they be disrespected for having different beliefs?

 

You can reframe it however you wish, you can open a thread, just don't bother to give advice others about how to present their questions.
And I already found your version nothing other than one of your usual and unnecessary trolling attempts...

 

IOW, since I have decided your opinions do not deserve respect, they are henceforth irrelevant.

I guess you cannot be held responsible for the values you grew up with.

All you have done is switch sides.

 

You are not here to make any contribution to the topic (positive or negative), that's obvious. Apparently, you have some personal problems with me, since you started to attack my childhood out of nowhere, as if you had any information about it, or as if you had some sort of magical powers to predict others' background through forum writings.

You can continue to entertain yourself with your usual nonsense.

 

Hmm so you don't see the relevance of my question at all? Its completely invisible to you?

 

thinking and believing are two different things.wow,i just popped a massive boner.

 

3 people in the room
No1.thinks that string theory holds the answers to many fundamental principles based on years of thought,experiment and calculation
No2.thinks that string theory is fundamentally inconsistent based on years of thought,experiment and calculation
No3. thinks that the fundamental principles of nature are controlled by a god that cares about what humans do and think based on his elders,men in robes and books that were written thousands of years ago


hmmm

how many of those things deserve respect?

 

The first 2 as they are not so obviously insane.