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?

I am not sure why encouraging a child to join in with normal family activities for the family they have joined is a safeguarding issue really."

I don't think anyone else does either, do they?

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/10448822/Adoption-Why-is-the-UK-making-it-so-difficult-for-religious-couples-to-adopt.html

My experience is anecdotal,ie friends adopting who have had SW's actually tell them that they will not write down exactly what they have answered but dumb it down as panel would be unlikely to approve a placement that the individual SW could see would be a good one. With comments like the one about beating/exorcising a gay child you can see there are some deep seated anti-Christian feelings/stereotypes around ! I am not denying that there are some African style churches who have been guilty of that but it is the stereotyping of all Christians that I find difficult. It has been virtually stated on this thread that anyone who believes homosexual sexual activity to be wrong is not suitable to adopt/foster a child so that would rule out a large amount of people of faith(not just Christians) and as the article I attached suggests if 55% of possible adoptors identify themselves as religious,then we are potentially creating quite a big problem in this country.

I am not sure why I am being accused of just wanting to be outraged on an internet forum.I have several times felt the desire to withdraw from this thread as I think Christians arguing with non-Christians actually gets no-one anywhere. It is virtually impossible to rationalise faith to a person of no faith and virtually impossible for a person of no faith to understand and accept what I believe and why. But I personally feel very affronted when accused of being homophobic. I love people of all descriptions.Ask anyone who knows me and they would describe me as loving ,caring,tolerant.I have friends who are gay,straight,bisexual.I have friends with severe LD who I support.I have friends with severe mental health issues. I have a friend on the sex offenders register who rings me daily for a chat.I can love all these people without necessarily thinking the way they live their life is the best. I leave them to their lives and if they ask me what I think,I will tell them honestly and compassionately what they think. How am I Homophobic or anyotherphobic?

I went to that link and apart from the title there is no evidence that any anti-religion bias exists in the system.

The article itself says that "Many religiously-active people are held back from adopting because they often wrongly believe their faith will prevent them being approved”.

It talks about 'First4Adoption' teaming up with ‘Home for Good’, a church-based movement to promote adoption and fostering.

There is one anecdote to support the claim. "A Christian friend of mine recently adopted a two-year-old child and found the process wasn’t as straightforward for religious people as the new campaign suggests“

This friend claims that the report about them played down the influence that their beliefs had on their lives.

Hmm so it was saying that their religion was NOT a significant factor.

So even the anecdote is evidence that ant-religious is not a problem.

ant-religious is not a problem.

Of course ants are a bit small to adopt so should be banned anyway.

With comments like the one about beating/exorcising a gay child you can see there are some deep seated anti-Christian feelings/stereotypes around

It was me who mentioned exorcising and I (thought!) made clear that this was a few 'rotten apple' churches, that most are benign. (I grew up as a christian in a lovely church, have lots of christian friends and relations ... maybe you didn't mean what you wrote there in relation to me but it does sort of read that way).

I'm sure you're not homophobic (certainly not by the dictionary definition). I think thought that nowadays the term is commonly being used to mean something rather different than that actual 'phobia' - it's applied to organisations or individuals who discriminate based on a person's sexual identity if other than heterosexual. This unquestionably applies to some people in some religious organisations to varying degrees.

You make a good point about arguing being futile. I've been working 14 hour days so unable to get online recently, but can't say I've missed it particularly! The truth is, you can argue til you're blue in the face, but the details will be meaningless if the person can't even see past what Jesus did for them at the cross.

Ultimately it comes down to one thing: those whose belief leads them to God and those whose belief leads them away from God. Yes, atheism is a belief: a very harsh religion, and require more blind faith than following the bible does. There is evidence Jesus existed and the bible is accurate, if you really want to know about that then google it, it's out there and not hidden under a rock. Demanding proof is just being argumentative, go and do your own footwork if you honestly want to know. If you don't honestly want to know then ask yourself why you hang around religion forums if it is not solely for the purpose of mindless arguments.

The sad truth is that the evil leading people away from God through atheism often makes the atheist proud of their anti-God views, but in reality the deceit that entangles them comes from the 'enemy of our souls'; the lion that the bible speaks of who 'roams seeking who he may devour'. The destroyer of even his own followers.

I am not tarring all atheists with the same brush on mumsnet. There is a sweet and gentle atheist who has started another thread and is a perfect example of an atheist respecting someone who follow's God, even through they don't themselves. Rude, sarcastic and argumentative she is not!

Which brings the topic round in full circle, back to the OP and the question about respecting other people's views, even if you don't share them.

Errol..it had been previously mentioned by BigDorrit and then I cross posted with you. I think the term 'homophobic' is definately being applied differently to its meaning but I also think there are many people who think that if you believe that homosexual sex is wrong, you somehow must hate anyone who identifys as gay.

“I remember reading the very first line of the report written about me by the social worker – it launched straight into my religious beliefs, saying how they weren’t hugely influential in my life which isn’t really the case. It felt like a deliberate effort to play down my Christianity. The final stage in the process is questioning by a panel of 10 people; they all had one question each – three of them chose to ask me about my religion to check that I wouldn’t be forcing it on a child.

This is the paragraph that struck me as it echoes what my friends said.The SW's on the ground,know that panel often disapproves of evangelical Christian families,therefore they change your answers or dumb them down to pass the panel process.I have heard this from several people.So the religious belief IS a problem so the SW says,incorrectly, that their faith is not hugely influential in their life!

Arguing is generally futile; some of the thread is actually about trying to understand other people and debate (which isn't the same thing as argument).

There is evidence Jesus existed and the bible is accurate, if you really want to know about that then google it,

I google a lot. I don't believe everything I read though. Sites claiming biblical 'accuracy' have a sad tendency to contain scientific or historical inaccuracies IME.

Incidentally, this forum is 'Philosophy/Religion/Spirituality' - you don't have to be a religious adherent to hang out here. Just someone who's interested in the world.

Sigh. It is a belief, because you can't scientifically prove or disprove the non-existence of god. Atheism is not a law of physics.

BigDorrit, I have no idea how you read from anything I have written that I feel Christians should receive any preferential treatment for anything. Of course I don't believe that.I just believe that if I wanted to adopt , I should be able to answer honestly without my answers being dumbed down to pass the panel.I fully agree that the system has to be robust as we are talking about the placement of often very vulnerable children.

And way back to the question of whether Jesus existed,this is an interesting read(not a Christian site..I think)
www.quora.com/Do-credible-historians-agree-that-the-man-named-Jesus-who-the-Christian-Bible-speaks-of-walked-the-earth-and-was-put-to-death-on-a-cross-by-Pilate-Roman-governor-of-Judea

and to say BigDorrit that 'people other than Christians do not consider the Bible to be a reliable source' What about the Jews and Muslims and then the historians generally.This is just one quote from numerous that I Googled.
Allen affirms that archaeological excavations in the Holy Land have “tended to support the historical value of the Gospels, at least as sources of information about the conditions of their times.”[3] As Nelson Glueck states, on the one hand “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contraverted a biblical reference”, whereas on the other “Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible.”[4]

Muslims did of course rewrite bits of the O.T so it may be fair to say they were not happy with it in its entirity I admit!!

Many Christians don't consider the Bible to be literal truth, especially not the OT. Among Christians, there are considerable variation as to what books are included in the canon, or which translations are valid.

The New Testament is of course not at all accepted by the Jews and - I'm actually not sure exactly how Muslims treat it except that obviously they have a radically different idea about who Jesus was.

So even 'the people of the Book' have fundamental disagreements about what The Book is. (let alone others who believe themselves to be in receipt of further and more complete revelation e.g. the Mormons).

'require more blind faith than following the bible does'
As someone who was a christian and now isn't, I can only say that this assertion does not in any way tally with my experience. For me atheism was opening my eyes, questioning and thinking - the very opposite of 'blind' and 'faith'. FWIW I don't think the term 'blind faith' should be applied to believers in general either, that's too shallow a term for many people I know (IRL and here)

Atheism a religion? That made me laugh.

“It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contraverted a biblical reference”

no sign of Noah's flood round my way.

Nelson Glueck- that well known, impartial academic who died in 1971.

Okay guys,ball back in your court.I am not an expert in websites.I had never heard of quora.com but when I Googled the question,everything I looked at stated that most historians accept that the details in the Bible are historically accurate ie Kings/Towns/Battles/customs of the day etc. I am not saying every detail has been proved but I am saying that it has not all been made up.So...please link me to a respected historian or 2 who do not consider the Bible to be a genuine historic document.

oh my goodness...we really are covering everything in this thread.Am I missing something here.I don't think the Bible states how old the earth is and I am not sure it mentions dinosaurs either.