Does Religion Deserve Respect?
A common claim by fundamentalist atheists is that they are fighting in a noble struggle against anti-atheism, a struggle perpetuated by rabid “Christian Nationalists” who want to force atheists worship their god.
The claim, far from being credible, is much like the anti-Semitic claim that they are fighting Jewish financial domination.
The vast majority of Christians in America support the absolute separation of Church and State.
Confusion Abounds
One topic were confusion abounds in in the representative topic of prayer in public school.
Those who support “prayer in public schools” tend to do so in the belief that supporting prayer in public schools is supporting the rights of religious children to individually pray to the god of their choice on school grounds.
Those who oppose “prayer in public schools” do so believing that they are opposing forced prayer in public schools - i.e., school leaders leading the students in prayer.
In fact, while students have been expelled for praying in school, it was due to their choice of location, not the fact that they were praying. More troubling is the an actual removal from class of a student who refused to say the “Under God” part of the pledge of allegiance.
Respecting Religion versus Respecting Religious Persons
So many atheists go through the motions of the debate as to whether or not religion deserves respect, and correctly arrive at the presupposed conclusion that religion does not deserve respect, and then proceed to verbally attack religious persons. One must wonder if Pol Pot’s logic wasn’t similar to that of the militant anti-theists. Like Dawkins, many Marxist anti-religious arguments focus on atrocities by religious groups to justify their atheist atrocities.
It’s logical fallacy by substitution. You asked whether or not religion deserves respect, not whether humans who happen to have religious beliefs deserve respect.
Communism may not deserve our respect. But the rights of communist person to be communist must be respected.
Religion may not deserve our respect. But the rights of the religious person to be religious must be respected.
The same goes for Satan worshipers, feminists, bigots, and adherents of any other unpopular ideology.
It is of course the instinct of the educated to assume that they know what is best for others, and to passionately desire to impose that perceived goodness on others.
It is the instinct of the individual sovereigntist to oppose any impingement upon the freedom of others by the self righteous proclaimers of “rightness”, no matter how many scientists they can line up to call names and ridicule the “wrong headed”.
I know for a fact that obesity is bad for one’s health. Plenty of science supports it. But frankly, it’s none of our business. If somebody wishes to be obese, that is their right.
Dawkins may state that he is just opposing ignorance of “faith heads”, as he calls them. But what he has achieved is a McCarthyesque atheism that makes McCarthyism look civilized in comparison. Passing disdain? Not likely. His disciples have been whipped into a feverish bigotry that not only promotes rabid intolerance of religious persons, but also challenges the right of theists to educate their children in their own faith.
In principle, the intolerance of the Christian Crusaders are no different from the actions of the Atheist Crusaders. Intolerance is intolerance.
Does religion deserve respect? I suspect not. But humans do. Religious humans, atheist humans, superstitious humans, too. Mutual respect is the foundation of society. The new atheist policy of ridiculing those who do not conform is not only anti-social; it is poor manners and dishonest, and anti-intellectual.
December 27th, 2007 at 3:28 am
Last I checked attempting to change people’s minds didn’t constitute inolerance. But with words enteringing the memory hole I guess I just missed the change. I don’t get your we must respect a person’s right to uphold an ideology… your implying that you support people’s right to hold any beliefs, including mine which states that people like you are idiots. What is really funny is you seem to be saying that it is okay for religious people to hold unpopular ideas, but not atheists. After all a “fundamentalist” atheist is simply a person who holds a certain idea and you must tolerate them because that appears to be what you believe. But you are taking a different attitude because… um you really don’t say why, except that “mutual respect” is important. Happens to be a lie by the way. Working together with a shared culture is the foundation for a stable society. Mutual respect is a foundation for what is happening in Western Europe. Apparently tolerating people who want to kill you leads to terrorism. But we must respect them! Yes, it does appear crack causes brain damage.
December 27th, 2007 at 3:57 am
Changing peoples minds - often in the form of education - is far from intolerant. Intolerance is when you try to legislate laws that make sharing of belief illegal.
Of course I support your right to belief that I am an idiot. I support that right of yours because I support freedom.
Where did I say that it’s not okay for atheists to hold unpopular ideas? I don’t care if you believe that all Christians in the USSR should be murdered or thrown into Gulags. I do, however, oppose any action based on that belief that would impinge on the rights of religious people.
Cute definition of fundamentalist atheism. But a more accurate description would be “an atheist who wants to employ governmental powers to criminalize religious belief”.
Yes, your Thought Police proposal is so much better. How would that work? Just put anybody in jail that disagrees with Dawkins?
You demonstrate the totalitarianism of atheists beautifully.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Sadly, no one will ever succeed in legislating against parent to child “Sharing of belief” as you euphemistically describe it. That’s why for the forseeable future we
can expect to see more suicide bombers emerging from the religiously inspired hate factories of the middle east, along with the persecution and repression of women that seems to accompany that particular brand of irrationality. In the West we can look forward to parents sharing with their children the belief that
the Earth is less than six thousand years old and humans once co-existed with Dinosaurs (like The Flinstones!)
Alright, I know I’ve selected examples from the lunatic fringe of religious
behaviour, or maybe not depending on just what your parents “shared” with
you when your mind was forming but would’nt the world be a better place
if we just taught our kids good moral values and laid off the mythical Sky Fairy stuff?
December 27th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Dave, you seem to think that you are in the perfect position to decide what people should and shouldn’t believe. Your reference of the failure of the totalitarian legislation to gain ground as “sad” indicates that you support it.
Now, what difference is there between your totalitarianism and the totalitarianism of Muslim extremists? They wish to impose their views on others by force of government, and you do the same. You are, whether you like it or not, more ideologically with the Muslim terrorists and the Christian Crusaders than the majority of Christians who believe in the separation of Church and state.
Whether or not god exists is really a non-issue. The issue is control freaks like Dawkins, you, and the religious minority that wants to legislate its agenda, versus reasonable defenders of freedom who want the atheist fundamentalists and religious fundamentalists to keep their stinking hands off the legislature.
December 27th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
I don’t particularly support the kind of legislation that you refer to. I don’t see how it could possibly work, any more than you could successfully legislate against parents from smoking in their own homes and damaging their children’s
health. Religion in it’s more extreme forms damages mental health and it seems
desirable to me that kids should be protected, at least until reaching an age when they can make informed decisions. Perhaps if all church entrances and religious publications were to bear a strongly worded health warning this would be a good start.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Atheism, in its extreme forms, could likewise be considered a form of child abuse. It’s not belief that abuses, it’s actions. If a religious person wants to abuse a child in the name of religion, it is the abuse that will be criminal, and it is that abuse that will get him or her convicted, not any particular belief.
Likewise, an atheist who wants to abuse his or her children in the name of atheism will be rightly convicted for abusive actions, not for beliefs.
Maybe I should get in on this totalitarianism. I could write a book on atheist and religious atrocities, criminalize both, and support legislation that removes children from religious homes and atheist homes and places them in agnostic households.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
i disagree with you John. The abuse is in the beliefs that are transmitted to young minds. The belief, for example of the suicide bomber that his actions will result in a reward in heaven with a hundred virgins waiting to pleasure him. A false belief
that will result in his painful and pointless death, together with anyone else in his immediate vicinity. And what about the human rights of the virgins - apparently
compelled to engage in rumpy pumpy with a murderous madman? As with most things concerning this particularly warped take on god squadery, i suppose they
don’t have much say in the matter. I’m curious to know however, if they are
permitted to remove their Darth Vader style complete body coverings prior to engaging with the aforementioned madman/martyr? These are the real questions!
December 29th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Dave, how is the belief of a Muslim suicide bomber more dangerous than the belief of an anti-theist murderer?
Would you make all belief illegal? How would that work? Doesn’t seem to practical.
December 29th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
John, my point is that extreme religious beliefs zealously pumped into impressionable unformed young minds who have not been afforded the time or opportunity to acquaint themselves with a variety of worldviews constitute a danger to their mental health and therefore qualify as a form of abuse. The poor muslim child, packed like a battery hen into a shed in Pakistan, nodding like a retard and re-routing his synapses with incessant recitatation of the Koran prior to being released on the world proudly flaunting a height- of -fashion [in his part of the world] Jihadi bomb belt is an extreme example. If he lived in the UK he
could watch C Beebies on TV and learn to use a Playstation. Hmmm….
I’m sure the same goes for Christian children with parents of an extreme
fundamentalist persuasion. Those kids might grow up thinking that in recent
history life was like The Flinstones with kids coming home from school and having to cross over the road and walk on the other side to avoid the local T. Rex. Not in itself a very terrible idea but it does deny 150 years of development
in evolutionary science so it can’t be a good thing. That reminds me..I’ll have
to re-visit one of those Creationist websites armed with a mug of strong coffee
to keep me awake and read about how they explain away radiometric testing
of rock samples that indicate an Earth age of 4.6 billion years, not 4000.
Don’t ideas like these, parentally transmitted imbecility and denial of reality qualifiy as child abuse and should’nt children be protected from them?
I would not make any beliefs illegal ,and forcing parents to refrain from
sharing their beliefs by legal means seems heavy handed and unnecessary.
All one can practically do, is hope people will see reason and leave the kids alone. Also pour lots of well argued scorn on the crazies!
December 29th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
I had a very good friend, Fattohi. Iraqi. Came from an Muslim family. He did just fine in the world, well adjusted, and better shape mentally than some UW (Seattle) kids I knew back then.
Surely there is a point when it becomes abuse. But Dawkins wasn’t talking about the extremes we find in a few places. The petition was to close UK faith schools, and to stop UK parents from sharing their beliefs with their children under penalty of law.
That’s totalitarianism. Legislating your morality is no different from Islamic extremists or Christian extremists legislating theirs.
Should we just take all kids away from their parents? Why limit the laws to faith based sharing? What if somebody believes that it’s ok to eat meat? Surely they should lose their children. And people who wear leather. And those jackasses who drive SUV’s. That is not teaching a child to be environmentally responsible.
December 30th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Leaving children alone to make up their own minds whilst allowing them to learn about a variety of faiths and facts seems fair to me. By sending them to
a faith school you’ve decided for them what they will believe, or at least you are applying a huge bias that will affect their freedom to make a balanced judgement when they are older.
My dictionary defines Totalitarianism as growing a dodgy looking moustache and invading Europe…oh, wait a minute, wrong dictionary.
December 30th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
The test of freedom is not in allowing others to do what we think they should do, but in allowing others to do exactly the opposite of what we think they should do, precisely because you do not have the right to interfere.
Love your humor, by the way.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:22 am
Sounds like The United Federation Of Planets “Prime Directive” to me. Are you a closet Trekkie?
December 31st, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Whether or not you respect religion AND whether or not you respect religious people, a civilized person should respect the rules of civility. This means, in most cases, minding your own business.
Our civil governments have lost track of that simple rule of civility.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:01 pm
John;
Most amazing post. This should be on the forum. The comments are equally interesting.
Now Dave. There was a lot of good lessons that came from STAR Trek. Take Head we are tracking you as we speak. Trekkies rule. Do you know what the stun setting is.
John, not to be a homer, but your thought and actions a brilliant as usual. Looks like I need to get back in the game and start posting more.
Cheers
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
No, gawd no.
*Applause*