We're always being told we should respect other people's beliefs, but....

[Hakluyt]

.....what exactly does "respect" mean in this context? I am an atheist, and I am always happy to be challenged on my lack of belief, and am frequently told that I must have no moral compass and that I have to put up and shut up when Christianity imposes itself on me. I have also been told that I must have no sense of wonder- and, on on particularly memorable occasion, that I couldn't possibly have any charitable impulses!

But if I say anything even remotely "challenging" about faith or people of faith,bi am accused of disrespect. So, what exactly does respecting other people's beliefs mean?

For some reason, CNN thought it best not to say who carried out the second study, or what it showed.

I did notice that the one interviewee said that the (now discredited) Regnerus report, was the largest and best study. So I wonder what the phantom second study was?

my mistake

CBN, not CNN

lots of interesting stuff for their target demographic

"However this seems like honing on on one very minor point. The fact is, I put it amongst other health factors and I notice no one has tried to argue against the NHS website! "

Why would anyone argue against a website saying that gay people are less likely to seek healthcare because they are concerned about discrimination? And that sexually active people should use condoms?

"Of course. There is no point in being a cherry picker when it come's to the bible; either it's true or it isn't. "

I don't agree with you, I say that slavery is wrong and should not be permitted or condoned, even when the slaves are foreigners from neighbouring countries, and even if the slaves or the slaveowners are Christians.

Leviticus 25:44-46

Exodus 21:2-6

Exodus 21:7-11

Ephesians 6:5

1 Timothy 6:1-2

Luke 12:47-48

coldcasechristianity.com/2014/four-differences-between-new-testament-servitude-and-new-world-slavery/

I think there is alot of simplifying of issues here to try and cause argument for the sake of it.The above link might just help people understand that Biblical slavery was not quite the same as recent/current slavery. A major OT story is the escape of the Israelites from Egyptian slavery.
The other thing that irritates me slightly about those who like to discredit the Bible is this assumption that everything mentioned in the Bible is condoned by God. Many biblical characters had several wives/concubines.This does not mean God approved of that.In most cases there was dreadful fall out between the wives and the Bible clearly documents the pitfalls of such relationships.It is an ancient record of how life was and its authenticity as a historic document is not really in dispute, but it is a collection of laws,poems,songs,historic accounts of battles etc .
As a Christian,I read it not only as history but through it see how Gods plan for man was constantly thwarted by man going his own way and feeling he could do far better without God. All the O.T laws were put in place at the time for good reasons.(some of which we can only guess at) An example on this thread is about a woman being seen as unclean during menstruation. I read some background on that that suggested reasons for this.Firstly,she was literally not clean.They did not have running water and tampons etc but had to keep clean as best they could. Most women would be in arranged marriages and would have seen this week of separation as a week off from marital duties.They got to hang out with the other women and together would have had a ritual cleansing at the end of the time of 'impurity' before returning to normal duties. Whilst I can see that that whole description might be outrageous to a feminist today,it is surely possible that women did and still do embrace these rituals because they work both ways. Surely that should be okay for a woman to decide without someone getting outraged about it on her behalf?!
Anyway....I digress. We could go on and on chucking Bible verses at each other on this thread to try and prove/disprove various theories but the whole point of the thread is about respect, and to me, I can respect an Atheists point of view (i.e, not feel compelled to tell them that they are missing out on so much by not knowing Christ , every time I talk to them !) but would in turn expect the same from them. My belief in the existence of Jesus is evidence based. My belief in his deity is based on faith/experience and the witness of millions who have gone before me. But,respect means I am always happy to listen to those who feel differently without feeling the need to try and rip their beliefs to shreds.

"My belief in the existence of Jesus is evidence based. My belief in his deity is based on faith/experience and the witness of millions who have gone before me. But,respect means I am always happy to listen to those who feel differently without feeling the need to try and rip their beliefs to shreds."

Could you address the points that have been made about Christians having and expecting to have a privileged position in society?

"I think there is alot of simplifying of issues here to try and cause argument for the sake of it.The above link might just help people understand that Biblical slavery was not quite the same as recent/current slavery."

I agree. Although there were plenty of 18 and 19th century Christians who used the Bible to justify slavery. And while people say things like "Christianity was the driving force behind Abolition" is is understandable that others want to counter that assertion.

I have addressed the points by saying previously that the positions of privi
lege are historic. There are lots of Cof E schools because the church set up lots of schools to educate the uneducated.Sunday schools started because Sunday was the only day that children forced to work 6 days a week and uneducated, were available to study. Christians decided they needed to learn to read and write and used the Bible as a good text to study. So whilst we can jump up and down and say now it's not fair, the reasons for the existence of these privileges are rooted in the development of the institutions. These things will change slowly. Our village has a 'church' school. The head is not a Christian. They embrace sex ed, evolution etc and as a Christian I do not see it as being distinct from any other school other than having the vicar and 2 church members on the governors.It should also be pointed out that living in a village with a large number of non anglican kids from a 'church' background, many of those kids are withdrawn from any Christian imput as it disagrees with their brand of Christianity, so it is not just the Atheists who object! The same goes with the Lords.It is historic and as this nation moves away from its Christian foundation,those privileges will disappear too.I personally agree that if Christians want their voices heard they need to be elected by the people to represent them.

Slavery
Joseph Sturge was a Quaker and formed the British and Foreign anti Slavery Society.
William Wilberforce was converted to Christianity aged 25 and committed his life to the abolition of slavery.Granville Sharp,Thomas Clarkson,both evangelical Christians.James Ramsey was a Rev., Josiah Wedgwood. In fact,I have Googled all of the big names I can find,both male and female,associated with abolition and have not found one person who was not a Christian. So that can be someone elses task to disprove my assertion that Christians were the driving force behind the abolition of slavery.

Christians were the driving force behind Abolition. Because it would have been professional and social suicide at the time not to be a Christian!

Was the Church vocal for Abolition?

And what about Christians expecting to be exempt from equality legislation ?

I wonder what Rainy and vdbfamily think was the religion of the British people who created and ran Britain's shameful slave trade?

I think the whole point is with 'religion' is that you get people who identify with a label ie protestant/Cathlolic and then fight over their differences ie Northern Island and then you get Christians who want to study the life of Christ and follow him. They are 2 different things. Same as you get Muslims who want to wage war on the infidels and others who just wish to live their lives quietly and peacefully. In the Bible it says about Christians that 'by their fruit you shall know them' The fruit referred to is the fruit of the Spirit which is Love Joy Peace Patience Self Control Kindness Goodness Faithfullness Gentleness. A Christian should be growing in all these characteristics and if they are lacking , one would have grounds to question why (accepting of course that we are all 'works in progress'!!) I am a non-conformist in terms of where I stand church wise and so would identify myself as a Christian and not a particular denomination. I suspect,rather like today, that the established church would have been doing much the same as everyone else and if having slaves was the done thing in society,most would have gone along with it. It was people who really studied and understood Gods word who fought to redress this and argue against the established norms, but it was their understanding that all are created equal in Gods eyes that motivated them.

re equality legislation it is a very difficult area.
Take Gay Marriage for an example.
Mainstream church teaching is that sexual intercourse is for a man and woman within a married relationship. This is not easy teaching for anyone single whether gay or not. I personally thought I would be celibate all my life as I did not get married until well into my 30's.However,I had no argument with the Biblical teaching on the subject. This teaching is for Christians. The Bible says in 1 Corinthians' It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning.' So whilst Christian rules cannot be imposed on non-Christians,to dictate to Christians that they cannot follow those rules is also a nonsense. Most Christians I knew were okay with civil partnership legislation as they understood it gave protection to gay couples who were committed to each other, but to then insist that the Institution of marriage itself be changed to suit everyone and then to try and further insist that Churches be forced to carry out those ceremonies whilst intrinsically disagreeing with the process is also a nonsense. A true Christian would never treat another human being with contempt even if they disagreed with their lifestyle but to accuse all Christians of being homophobic just because they disagree with a persons lifestyle choice is a nonsense..If that were true then Christians also hate everyone who is co-habiting or having pre/extra marital sex,and lets face it,that would have be hating most of the adult population. I know it is a cliche, but I really do have some close friends and relatives who would identify as gay,some living with partners,some celibate and some in and out of relationships.I really do not love/care about them any less because of it and those that are Christians,I do get into debates about its rights and wrongs, but I still love them as friends. I really really object to being labelled 'homophobic' just because I believe that sex is for marriage. It is such an ignorant statement.
So...a very long answer to a short question is that you cannot force people to act against what they believe in the interests of equality. By all means petition for a legal system of marriage like in France where it is a legal ceremony,and you can opt for a religious service afterwards but do not try and force churches to perform the ceremony against their beliefs.

What other equality issues are there?

Ah, the idea of the "true Christian"

"No true Scotsman........"

I must have missed something-is there any suggestion that Christian Churches would be forced to marry people?

well Churches are being accused of discrimination and yes I think there are people legally challenging a churches right to refuse to marry them. If you take equality law to its literal conclusion, how can a church refuse? Unless you have a clause for religious belief,which is what you are objecting to.

The 'true Christian' thing is something to be careful with. Only God truly knows what is going on in the hearts of those who love him and we all have a very long way to go to be truly Christlike.I would never accuse someone of not being a Christian but I do believe that people claiming to be should show some signs of it outwardly! And I know you meant the comment sarcastically but I am just clarifying what I meant.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-gay-fathers-sue-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html

just an example.

What other examples are there of Christians wanting to be exempt from equality legislation? I'm not saying they don't exist,just trying to think.

Personally I don't think anyone should try to force a particular religious institution to perform gay marriages if they don't want to - any more than we can actually force them not to discriminate against women. The recent change in the law allowed for the denominations which do want to support equal rights to do so - among Christian churches, the URC and Quakers who AFAIK believe in no discrimination based on sex or gender.

vdb - religious organisations already have exemptions from normal standards of equality. They can discriminate against women; they can discriminate against children whose parents are of the wrong faith; they can discriminate against teachers who aren't of the right faith.

I see the Daily Fail article was dated 2 August 2013

"just an example" you say

The Fail article actually says "Under the Government's same-sex marriage law... churches must legally opt in before they can conduct same-sex ceremonies."

Have you got an example of a church actually being forced to carry out single-sex weddings against its will?

Why are churches exempt from gender discrimination laws- a genuine question.

Somebody challenged the law- as is their right. Anyone with enough money can challenge any law thy like. The point is, did they win?

So whilst Christian rules cannot be imposed on non-Christians In practise they are. The most common example is that all schools must arrange for their pupils to worship god at least once per day. Note worship - not 'learn about'. I know there's an opt out, but it's rather like the option for conscientious objectors.

While there are Christians who don't approve of that (many Christians are also Secularists) it's still the position of the church. So the church thinks that Christian rules should be imposed on non-Christians. Even on those of a different religion.

but to then insist that the Institution of marriage itself be changed to suit everyone

Marriage isn't something that belongs to Christians. If we passed a law on communion that would be different.

We didn't 'change it for everyone'. The fact that somewhere in the country a couple who are married are of the same sex doesn't affect anyone else's marriage.

further insist that Churches be forced to carry out those ceremonies

We specifically did not do that. We passed a law that our citizens can - in registry offices - enter into a marriage. The churches tried to stop us. I seem to recall that when the Quakers said "hang on a minute - we may want to perform these marriages" they were told 'Tough! you can't" by the 'proper' churches

I have no problem with religious people having rituals and customs, but when they break the law of the land and what we as a nation have declared to be morality then they can't make up their own rules. If you have such a blanket right to disobey the law then I can start a religion which requires me to rape and murder using the same argument.

Remember the orphanages thing? We said that they can't refuse to send children to same sex parents if they are otherwise suitable. The needs of the child come before the needs of the church. The church essentially said 'sod that. The only thing that matters is the church. If we can't run orphanages that discriminate we'll close them down'

So re adoption...what happens now is that unless Christians play down their beliefs they are often refused the right to foster/adopt children,so things are swinging in the opposite direction.Christian adoption agencies that have been placing kids into happy homes for years are forced to close because they will not change their beliefs.I'm not sure why they can't be left to arrange adoptions within heterosexual couples and other secular agencies arrange same sex adoptions.
Whilst I accept that Churches currently have an exemption from marrying gay couples,it is you that is saying that exemption is wrong,and I who am trying to explain why it does not make sense to force churches to comply.

Whilst I accept their are issues re faith schools,I find it ironic that to gain access to those schools,people move to the area, go to church etc etc to get their kids into the school rather than just choose a non church school.Why are the faith schools so sought after. I don't know the answer.As I have said before,ours is a Cof E school but most of the teachers are not Christians and we are certainly not allowed to turn down an applicant on the grounds of their non-belief.I believe a voluntary aided school may have more say as they are putting more funding in.I know the law still insists that all schools have a daily act of worship,but in reality this does not often happen in non-church schools.As I have previous said,it is a tradition that I am sure will not last much longer.

Whilst I realise that Marriage is not exclusive to Christians it has long been known as Holy Matrimony in this country and even non-Christians often opt to make it a religious ceremony. The Christian institution of marriage and the vows made are something quite different to marriage as just a legal thing and so gay marriage is fundamentally different to traditional Christian marriage. Maybe the solution is to make marriage a civil ceremony generally and then let Christians arrange their own religious service to follow.

Re gender discrimination laws,there are some churches who believe the Bible teaches that men and women have different roles and functions within the church.Whilst I can see that many people would object to this I can also see that it would be pointless for a woman to apply for a role in one of those churches that the church felt should have a man in place for. If churches were forced to not be able to state it was a male role then how is that going to work in practice if that is what the church believes is right?