When will people realize that we are all entitled to their own opinions when it comes to religion?

Question

When will people just stop the insults and nasty comments about what others beleive? Wheather it is calling some ignorant for beleiving in God or ignorant for not beleiving in God... Why can't we all say "Alright that is what you beleive." You don't have to agree but everyone can beleive what they want. Why can't people just accept that and respect other people who beleive differently than temselves?

Answer 1

I agree whole heartedly, but I feel like people get off in here on insulting others. It is sad really.
I know that when people believe something strongly they of course think they are "Right", but that "right' for them may not be for someone else.
I am a Christian and if someone asks about my faith I will share with them, I will even say I think that it would benefit them to believe in God, but I would never insult someone who does not.

Answer 2

Because the answers matter (of course there should be a system of ethics in how we address others). What we believe about the world determines in large part how we treat others.

Take the Roman Catholic view from the Medieval Era. The Church was a political power. It didn't just influence politics, it was a political power itself and regarded itself as the rightful owner of several lands. If someone is a RC and denies the faith, then they have just committed treason to the state and are liable to earthly punishments. This included torture and execution. You can keep this belief quiet by force, but your question presupposes they abandon their view of religion and adopt yours, and the ethics will change accordingly.

What happens with Muhammad? He taught, in numerous places, to attack and either kill or subjugate the infidel. If we can't confront and discuss the ethics of those commands, then more and more people can start obeying them without opposition, and the problem can only grow and fester in the background (this has been our traditional Western approach for a little while now).

What about atheism? There is no difference between a human being and a dirt clod. Why should any individual be treated well if atheism is in power? Stalin said, "Death solves all problems" and "No man. No problem." This materialist view is incapable of supporting a high ethic of humanity once it is in power, and it has resulted in death and killing every time it's been in power.

What happens, on a practical level, if I should believe that you don't exist except when I pay attention to you, that this is true of the whole world? Well, then you are at my mercy, and I can do what I want. This is solipsism.

What happens in the case of secularism where religion is regarded as a purely private phenomenon that should have no public manifestation (a direction your post heads in philosophically). Religion is then reduced to a trinket, and those who would defy religion are acting immorally. Should they be jailed for being intolerant? This has already happened in a number of cases. Even the view you have espoused leads directly to intolerance as a result, except it is intolerant of those it deems intolerant (which is no different than what it opposes, just with a different target that renders it contradictory). While your view may not be there yet, that is the logical conclusion.

There's also the view that what is good and high is whatever helps the human race in its quest for survival or otherwise improves it. If we take that seriously, then what shall we do? Shall we eliminate undesirables and prevent their breeding? What about the mentally handicapped or the deformed? Shall we practice a selective breeding using science to create a super race (called eugenics)? The Nazis did it, and our bioethicists are discussing it, even discussing the ethical method to kill the undesirables.

What about the view that the world isn't real, and that we are in our positions so that we can learn our lessons from the past lives? What happens if we believe that our ultimate goal is to lose our individual person? Well, why feed the baby starving in the street? You'll only be denying it some lessons and prolonging its stay on earth. Follow the example Krishna commanded in the Bagavad Ghita, and be willing to perform your role even if it means killing kinsmen, for you help both yourself and the others along toward Nirvana by the cruelty and thus escape the wheel of birth and rebirth.

I could list a litany of others. We should discuss the issues because they matter. Our society, its values and ethics, and our behavior, will all derive from our religious and philosophical beliefs about God, man, and the world. If we change these, then we change morality, and it won't always happen in a positive manner. If we ignore them and don't discuss them or confront them, then the change will happen in an uncritical and unthinking manner, which can be far, far worse. Your own question espouses a view that would, if left unchecked, lead to tyranny and cruelty.

Even now, we're breeding whole generations of kids on materialism. We teach them from infancy on to evaluate and categorize the world in that manner. We teach them they are basically animals and discourage anything spiritual in public discussions as "private" (which extends to of lesser value). Consequently, when we tell them that they are animals and this is the public value, we find ourselves shocked when they shoot and kill one another. Did we not teach them the ethics to justify it? Why are we shocked? Had we allowed more public discussion and flexible rules, we might have avoided the problem.

You can't have a neutral public arena. Something will be taught our people by the state, its laws, and its schools. This something will have ethical dimensions and repercussions. That is the ultimate reason to have the discussions and candidly condemn anything we find immoral and unsound. It is for our own safety, that of our neighbors, and that of our children. I'd hate to have my grandchildren inherit a Hell-hole and tell them, "Sorry kids, it got this way because we wouldn't talk about things, but it was for the best it degenerated. Look at your freedom" while they cower in the shade of evil that doesn't tolerate good. I will not allow myself into that position, nor would I advise anyone else.

Answer 3

Before Roe vs Wade, people were far more polite about each other's religion, or lack thereof. Then the Christian right violated a long-standing social contract and organized for the purpose of manipulating Federal law to force their superstitions on all the rest of us. The Christians began tampering with science education in America. Scientific people were understandably upset. A wave of (probably unconstitutional) laws have been passed by the religionists that make it illegal for an atheist to hold public office in many states. People who believe in the principles of democracy were understandably upset. The religious right has manipulated the law so that a few hundred stem cells are now considered the moral equivalent of a living person, condemning millions of the afflicted to a life without hope of a cure for their disability. Scientists, doctors, and the disabled are understandably upset. Then the religious right helped elect G.W. Bush to the Presidency and he has consistently defiled the principles of American justice and imagines it is his destiny to instigate the "end-of-days" scenario. Every one who hates injustice and war is understandably upset.

I'm hoping you see the pattern here: that the religious right is manipulating the U S government to further its own agenda. While I would prefer to live in a country of mutual toleration and respect, it is not possible as long as religious people continue to tamper with America's Constitutional secular government. It is always tyranny when a well represented majority use the mechanisms of government to inflict their values on a poorly represented minority. Thinking people understand what's at stake here and we will NEVER let superstitious mysticism destroy our beloved secular democracy.

Answer 4

Looks like a basic logic lesson is in order...

You aren't entitled to make objective claims about reality that are completely ignorant without proof. We all live in the same world, so claims about reality are not something that can be disagreed about without proof. An example here would be "there is a cow in my living room." I can go look and see if there's a cow in my living room. If there is, I'm right and you're wrong. If there is no cow there, you're right and I'm wrong. In the first case, you are not entitled to your opinion that there's no cow in my living room, and in the second case, I'm not entitled to my opinion that there IS a cow in the living room.

This is different from the type of opinion you're allowed to disagree on, namely, subjective opinions. An example here would be whether or not you prefer marinara sauce over alfredo. There is no right or wrong answer because people have different tastes.

Claims of the existence of a god are claims about reality. They are objective. Once someone can prove their god exists (which will never happen because gods are fairy tales and always have been), then they'll be entitled to claim he is real. And yes, the burden of proof is on the ones claiming gods exist. The default assumption is nonexistence in every case, not existence. In other words, you have to prove something is real, not demand we prove it isn't real.

Answer 5

Good question....I'm thinking it will happen when emotional maturity kicks in for each individual who can't just agree to disagree.

A true Christian will have a burden on their hearts for unbelievers, but we should be sensitive to the Holy Spirit's leading - and God is NOT going to lead us to try to cram our beliefs down anybody else's throat. That's not how Jesus did it, folks. He sent His disciples through the land to preach the gospel, and if anyone didn't receive them / their testimony, they were to shake the dust of that town from their feet and MOVE ON. We plant the seed - that's it. It's up to GOD to nurture and help it grow. If the soil is hard and doesn't want to receive the seed, so be it...

Answer 6

Me personally have a curiousity about other religions and what they believe... not to bash or judge them just to understand it ya know. we are all different but should love each other no matter our differences...

I am a Christian and proud of it... and witness every chance I get... Would love for the world to know the love of My Savior. I wont push my beliefs on anyone I do my part and tell them the love of Christ and pray let God Take Control from there

Answer 7

When someone cannot respect another's right to their opinion and right to voice it and that there our boundaries between people which command respect.

When someone has to resort to insults and put downs of the person themselves or what they choose to believe, then the ones who have made the insults and put downs always loses. If you know that, you may not win every debate, but you will never lose one.
----the rose

Answer 8

everyone has a belly button, they are all different looking, some go in others go out, some are hidden from view others in plain sight, some are dark colored, some light colored, some in between. Just like opinions, they are all different and entitled to be different. Its all really elemental isn't it?

Answer 9

you could desire to assert the genuine same approximately some atheists, in basic terms asserting. do no longer generalize. maximum folk i comprehend IRL (non secular and non-non secular) are very respectful of people's comments. it style of feels to be in basic terms on web pages like those that the two factors are total arch-nemeses to a minimum of one yet another, and become so hateful in direction of anybody who believes something different to what they do. i come across it rather unhappy...

Answer 10

I already do. I just wish other people would quit trying to convince me that theirs is the only true religion. Religion is a very private thing. The most important thing is that we live by what we believe.