![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Something that several people have expressed in their comment on a previous post is that making a comment like "goddamned Catholics" is somehow out of line. It's out of line because it's disrespectful.
I walk for half an hour, morning and evening, these days, on the way to and from work, and that gives me some thinking time. Yesterday evening I was thinking about this issue of respect. Particularly respect of religions.
In a manner that I think the ancient Greeks used, I'm going to present this as a dialogue, because this is often how I think. Some people may recognise the names; they're not necessarily what those characters would think, but they're close and convenient voices.
Arc of Fire: Explain to me why I should respect a religion I have no part of, and whose tenets I do not hold true.
Calpurnius: Because that religion does good and useful things.
Arc of Fire: But that religion also does bad and less than useful things.
Calpurnius: Those are the actions of certain practioners of the religion, not the religion itself.
Arc of Fire: So I am free not to respect the individual practitioners, as long as I continue to respect the religion?
Calpurnius: Yes.
Arc of Fire: Is this in general or in particular?
Calpurnius: In general.
Arc of Fire: So what happens if a religion works on the basis of slavery and sacrifice? Must it too be respected? Or one that holds that the world is secretly governed by pigeons?
Calpurnius: No, a religion's practices must fall into certain accepted categories of behaviour and sense before it requires respect.
Arc of Fire: With regard to the practices of the religion under discussion, do its practices fall into these accepted categories?
Calpurnius: I believe so.
Arc of Fire: What happens if I do not believe that the categories are acceptable?
Calpurnius: Can you give an example?
Arc of Fire: If the religion holds that its practices must be enshrined in law and applied to all people, regardless of their own beliefs?
Calpurnius: The religion under discussion does not not hold that - other related religions do.
Arc of Fire: It is nowhere written that it holds that, but if you examine the histories as I have, you will see that its efforts for centuries have been concentrated on making that the case.
Calpurnius: That can be seen.
Arc of Fire: So what basis is there for respect?
The discussion trails off here, mainly because Arc has Calpurnius backed into a corner (and this is where the characters become just voices in my head, because the real Arc would never argue with Calpurnius on religion, much less win).
But it seems to me that what people are saying is that I must respect a religion because it is a religion, and I don't accept that. Nobody can make me respect Scientology, and you'll have the greatest of difficulty in getting me to respect certain more odd sects of the Religions of the Book. Yet I respect the personal religion that certain people I know have, and some of these people call themselves Christians.
I do respect the right of all people to hold their own beliefs. I'm not challenging that. But discuss, please. I'm not arguing one side over the other; I just want to know what other people think - should any and every religion be respected simply because it is a religion? Because in my mind at least, I can respect it because it's a religion, or I can respect it because it is right - and of course I do not believe that any religion other than my own is right.
I walk for half an hour, morning and evening, these days, on the way to and from work, and that gives me some thinking time. Yesterday evening I was thinking about this issue of respect. Particularly respect of religions.
In a manner that I think the ancient Greeks used, I'm going to present this as a dialogue, because this is often how I think. Some people may recognise the names; they're not necessarily what those characters would think, but they're close and convenient voices.
Arc of Fire: Explain to me why I should respect a religion I have no part of, and whose tenets I do not hold true.
Calpurnius: Because that religion does good and useful things.
Arc of Fire: But that religion also does bad and less than useful things.
Calpurnius: Those are the actions of certain practioners of the religion, not the religion itself.
Arc of Fire: So I am free not to respect the individual practitioners, as long as I continue to respect the religion?
Calpurnius: Yes.
Arc of Fire: Is this in general or in particular?
Calpurnius: In general.
Arc of Fire: So what happens if a religion works on the basis of slavery and sacrifice? Must it too be respected? Or one that holds that the world is secretly governed by pigeons?
Calpurnius: No, a religion's practices must fall into certain accepted categories of behaviour and sense before it requires respect.
Arc of Fire: With regard to the practices of the religion under discussion, do its practices fall into these accepted categories?
Calpurnius: I believe so.
Arc of Fire: What happens if I do not believe that the categories are acceptable?
Calpurnius: Can you give an example?
Arc of Fire: If the religion holds that its practices must be enshrined in law and applied to all people, regardless of their own beliefs?
Calpurnius: The religion under discussion does not not hold that - other related religions do.
Arc of Fire: It is nowhere written that it holds that, but if you examine the histories as I have, you will see that its efforts for centuries have been concentrated on making that the case.
Calpurnius: That can be seen.
Arc of Fire: So what basis is there for respect?
The discussion trails off here, mainly because Arc has Calpurnius backed into a corner (and this is where the characters become just voices in my head, because the real Arc would never argue with Calpurnius on religion, much less win).
But it seems to me that what people are saying is that I must respect a religion because it is a religion, and I don't accept that. Nobody can make me respect Scientology, and you'll have the greatest of difficulty in getting me to respect certain more odd sects of the Religions of the Book. Yet I respect the personal religion that certain people I know have, and some of these people call themselves Christians.
I do respect the right of all people to hold their own beliefs. I'm not challenging that. But discuss, please. I'm not arguing one side over the other; I just want to know what other people think - should any and every religion be respected simply because it is a religion? Because in my mind at least, I can respect it because it's a religion, or I can respect it because it is right - and of course I do not believe that any religion other than my own is right.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Now here's a question: Is ignoring a religion a mark of disrespect???
If it was then surely all atheists ans agnostics would be in the situation where they don't respect anyone or their religion.
Personally I take the view of "live and let live", or to put it another way...I'm an Atheist/agnostic/do not believe in the worshiping of divine powers. My family is Roman catholic (for the most part) and a good lot of my friends are pagan or wiccan. My view in regardds to them is "You are of X religion. You hold Y practices. I accept this because you are my friend. And I will always accept this as long as you do not try to impose your beliefs on me"
Now, I'm aware that this is quite a naive point of view but its one that's worked for me so far, and has actually worked in "religious discussions" also.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I can say a lot more about the effect of Catholicism on Ireland and Europe, and how I resent that, but it tends rapidly into the territory of "I can blame the Roman Catholic Church for everything that went wrong in my life ever!" and similar hysterics.
So, to answer your question, if Scientology had had the effect on Ireland that Catholicism has had, I would indeed say such things, and probably far worse.
From:
Re:
And as for the first part of your argument - Christ, are you even reading the words you wrote? You honestly can't see where *Give out about doctor, give out about doctor, give out about doctor.... "Bloody Catholics!"* might give someone the impression that you were implicitly blaming the doctor's Catholicism? It's a fairly obvious link Drew. Just try reading the post from the POV of someone that's not you, as it can be very hard for us to see meanings in something we wrote that we did not intentionally place there.
And I repeat once more, the doctor's going to a healthy 25-year-old "Well, I will carry out the procedure, but I really do feel 25 is too young for such drastic action. Are you really sure about this?" or words to that effect has *nothing* whatsoever to do with whether or not she is Catholic or even - get this - what bloody religion the country has operated under for however long. It is because she's a bloody doctor and it is her responsibilty to make sure any patient of hers know exactly what they are getting into, and is fully aware of any and all consequences, both for their future health and happiness, and her future freedom