"It's not my place to interefere in anothers beliefs" ...Where did this idea come from?

Question

And why should we not interfere with anothers belief?...especially when we can sometimes see how they are being manipulated to believe even though they may be unaware of this manipulation themselves?

Answer 1

Ooh, wonderful question.

I have to admit that I was the same way as this for a long time. I grew up Catholic and now am more agnostic than anything else. But because I grew up with that, I suppose I always thought I should let others believe what they wanted, especially since I wouldn't want them to try and make me believe in God. I thought that religion does have benefits for some people, that it can give them a reason to be better people.

But I've been growing more and more uncomfortable with this assertion as I've grown to know more about the world and as I've seen Christians essentially trying to take over our country. What is it that makes Christian beliefs (or Islamic beliefs, or any beliefs) more sacred than my own? What makes them more sacred than not believing in a god at all. At least atheists have a logical reason for believing what they want to believe. Most Christians believe in their dogma either because it was drilled into them from birth or because it gives them comfort to think that they'll be forgiven for all of the terrible things they do on earth.

Then I read Sam Harris. His books (esp. "A Letter to a Christian Nation") should be required reading by every U.S. citizen. He points out that we should very much interfere with other people's beliefs, especially when they cause a damage to society.

Essentially, I think, people think they shouldn't interfere in other's beliefs because they wouldn't want other people to do that to them. Or they think that because another's beliefs cannot be proven and rely entirely on faith, they can't be argued against anyway. Or they even think that another's beliefs imply a strong moral cause that they shouldn't argue against, even if it disagrees with their own, or with simple logic.

I certainly agree with you: we *should* interfere with other people's beliefs when we see that it is hurting themselves, others, and society in general.

Answer 2

Whoever made this statement probably followed it with the word "....but".

The concept behind this statement is oxymoronic, but more importantly, I have never met a person who actually believes this.

It is almost like an ingrained part of human nature to surround ourselves with people who subscribe to the same beliefs we have, therefore to communicate our beliefs to another is in fact 'interfering', especially if it is different or diametrically opposed.

You see, belief is interfered with at the moment anyone mentions the possibility of a different belief, because now the hearer needs to choose between two (or more) paths of belief to continue on..

Answer 3

There are basically two types of human communication. The transference of something written or spoken from the mind of one person to the mind of another. Either a personal opinion/belief, or a hard fact. For a t hing to qualify as a fact, it has to be backed by clear, unarguable, indisputable, incontravertible proof, and in the absence of that kind of backing, anything else will forever remain an individual opinion/belief. Every human being on this planet has the inalienable right to be the owner of his own mind, and the master of his own thinking and believing, and in a free society it's generally recognised that no matter how stupid; how misguided; how "wrong" you think that other person is in what he thinks and believes, that is still his property and no other person has the authority to interfere with his right of ownership of that belief. No matter how strongly, and how passionately YOU believe that you are right and he is wrong, without that person's express permission to try to "enlighten" h im, you are stepping into that other individual's personal territory when you attempt to intrude YOUR ideas, YOUR beliefs, YOUR values upon him. You would almost certainly take no pleasure in having somebody attempt to inflict his beliefs on you, If you know, or s trongly suspect that somebody is doing something that is against the law, then there are official channels that are available for you to go through to have that matter pursued by those with clear authority to do so. But to the best of my certain knowledge, there exists no law against anybody being able to hold whatever beliefs and opinions he chooses to embrace, whether you happen to approve or not. In my life I have run into quite a few people whose thoughts and ideas about one thing or another were, in my opinion, so far out in space, they were orbiting Mars. But what I thought or believed was never the issue. The issue was THEIR absolute right to hold those ideas. If I didn't want to deal with that, then it was MY right to remove myself from the "offending person" and his beliefs, and go on my own way. I can think of no situation better suited to apply that well known old phrase..."Do as you would be done by" If we all went around believing we had the absolute right to get into other people's lives, and into their minds, and try to change their thoughts and beliefs to match ours, then we could no longer call ourselves a "Free Society" or claim to hold sacred the right of everybody to be the owner of his own mind

Answer 4

There's a difference between interfering with belief and putting out facts to the contrary. If someone looks at said facts and chooses to reject them, that's their choice; let them believe as they will.

Answer 5

It came from Jesus himself who said to spread the word but if you find one who will not hear, then you shake the dust off your feet as you leave that village. In other words stay out of their business if they plainly do not want your message.

Answer 6

It came from the Devil, who wanted people to stop spreading God's word.

Answer 7

FREEDOM

Check into,, it is this great little idea many have died to have and defend.