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'm an atheist and have also been belittled by people who have faith
But it doesn't bother me much . I'm of the opinion it's the people rather than their beliefs, I firmly believe everyone has the right to their own opinions as long as they don't force their view on others, you can respect people but not believes .it is their right to have them just as it's my right not to!
However I will add any debate about religion is always a bad idea( leads to arguments bad feeling etc...) best to leave well enough alone

With regards illustrations,yes I am sure I have cited many things as illustrations that I have not agreed with.If you look at Jesus'actions to see if he approved of violence he said when the woman was to be stoned for adultery 'let you who is without sin cast the first stone'. When he was about to be arrested and his disciples went to defend him he said'put your sword back in its place for those who live by the sword will die by the sword', He says 'love your enemies,pray for those who persecute you,' 'if someone strikes you on the right cheek,turn to him the left cheek also'.
Even if we return to the Luke passage that was cited by headinhands, the previous unquoted bit of the story was that the master had left a servant in charge of the rest of the servants to make sure they were fed properly and looked after well,but he had decided to abuse his power by beating them all up,so he was punished on the masters return.Sounds to me like Jesus was making a point that he should not have treated them badly, rather than condoning violence.

What about all the violence Jesus ordered and performed in the Old Testament? it was the same guy right?

Looking at the extreme secularism links now.

"He gave the example of Christmas where increasingly nativity scenes and Christmas trees are banned from charity shops and official Christmas cards have 'seasons greetings'. Instead of depictions of the Holy Family we have glossy photos of the leader at home"

Let's take that example.

Do you think he'd have said "that's ok then" if the cards had said "Allah's greetings?. Or if the cards had a picture of Mecca on the front?

Christmas is a winter festival that existed before the church moved the birthday of Jesus to Dec 25th. Only a minority see it as a purely Christian celebration. So the only way to include everyone is to use a neutral term.

Imagine addressing a room full of random people and saying "Good morning Christians!" that would be rude wouldn't it.

And who is banning nativity scenes and Christmas trees and why? It might be happening on an individual basis because I imagine a charity shop stocking those in an Islamic area like Tower Hamlets might be shunned, but that just highlights that each religion hates all others. Each one demands a monopoly.

Maybe make-up and condoms are not in themselves secular !! But as I said,when you live in a society that is fighting to rid itself of the influence of Christianity on it,sometimes the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater and you reach a point where facts are taught in a moral vacuum.
Regards make-up,it was only a few years ago that it was banned in most secondary schools, presumably in an attempt to encourage girls to realise that they can be beautiful people without wearing make-up and that what they look like is not the most important thing in life. I am sad that this rule has now changed(certainly in all 3 of our local secondaries) and within a few weeks of being there my daughter wants to wear make-up because 'everyone else is'. I think it was right to discourage in the past but as it becomes more and more normal for kids to behave more like adults at a younger age,schools obviously feel it is not worth the fight any more.
Maybe I lack understanding of what 'secularism' is and/or maybe I am being too simplistic about it but just my observations.

Bigdorrit...of course I do not tell my children they are Christians. They are most certainly not Christians until they decide that is what they want. Why do you make such assumptions? And of course I do not wish there is no sex ed.Kids in our society are completely confused about the whole subject.They are exposed to porn and x rated tv from a horrendously young age and need to be told that Hollywood sex,photoshopped women and porn is not the reality in everyday life for most of us. However,I would prefer that it is not taught in a moral vacuum. I would prefer that rather than teach them how to put on a condom,they taught them to respect themselves,that sexual intercourse is an adult activity that is actually illegal for under 16's. That if you have sex,then that can result in a baby and if you are not prepared to have a baby then don't have sex. (Now if you think that is an unreasonable viewpoint,go to a MN debate on whether a man should in all circumstances financially support their children,even if they were a one night stand, a sperm donation between friends etc and without fail you will find women stating that if a man has PIV sex,he must understand it could result in a baby that he is responsible for,even if the woman continues the pregnancy against his wishes) Are we teaching this to our teenagers or are we saying,this is sex,this is how not to get pregnant.Morning after pill or abortion if that fails and as long as you are not coerced it is all fine. I will follow closely what my daughter is taught and we will discuss it lots at home as we have already done. We,naturally have told her that her mum and dad both waited until they were married and consequently managed to avoid any emotional traumas and broken hearts en route,( not to mention std's and unwanted pregnancys) but in turn we will accept that as an adult, she will make her own decisions about how she lives her life and will love her no less for her choices.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/17/ban-christmas-muslims_n_4460151.html

Most of the Muslims I know celebrate Christmas although a couple of them I will admit have converted to Christianity.This statement from the Muslim council suggests that most are not offended by our celebrations.

And now I think I need to get some fresh air before I sit here all afternoon defending my opinions!

vbdfamily, but what about sexual pleasure?

We are now thankfully living in a time where women can enjoy sex, have multiple partners if they wish, to take control and enjoy their orgasms.

I would hate to marry a man I had not had sex with- how would you know that you are compatable? We all vary in our ability to enjoy sex and please our partners and the truth is that some men ( and women presumably) are crap in bed.

Your view is from the dark ages.

My mother was very old fashioned in her views and when it came to the talk of the birds and bees she told me that I would never be the same "once a man has tampered with me", that sex is for a man's pleasure, sex is a horrible thing and that I should try at least to pretend to enjoy sex for my husbands sake.

Aye right!

'Specialness' and 'commitment' are completely removed*

The government's guidelines for sex and relationship health education in schools is rooted in fostering respect for ourselves and others.

well fortunately my Christian parents told me that sex was a wonderful thing,to be enjoyed within marriage,and that it was for mutual enjoyment. I married a man with no experience,who understood that my pleasure was as important as his and can honestly say that from the night of our honeymoon , he has always managed to ensure that. I accept I have no comparisons but fail to see why 2 people who love each other would be unable to give each other sexual pleasure in a mutually acceptable way.It is not all about PIV after all.My view might be from the dark ages,but at least I have no chance of STD's and very very little chance of cervical cancer and if I accidentally fall pregnant am in a situation where that baby could be welcomed and loved and I also managed to avoid any emotional heartbreak en route.So,if that's the middle ages I am happy with that.

There's no evidence that a scriptural approach to sex education would be of any benefit. What we do know from data is that it's factual education in a framework of mutual respect for each other.

" but fail to see why 2 people who love each other would be unable to give each other sexual pleasure in a mutually acceptable way"

You wouldn't know that if you have had only one partner.

I have had many. Believe me men vary a great deal in their ability to enjoy and give pleasure.

Sex can be wonderful in the context of a loving relationship, but can also be fun without it.

In over emphasising the belief that sex should only happen in marriage castigates many women into being viewed as sluts.

It's the whole christian thing of virgins and whores. Very unsavoury.

Millions of people enjoy a relaxed attitude towards sex without unwanted pregnancy or STDs.

Thanks for that very stern warning though.

THe church is obsessed with sex, it should butt out.

Headinhands, whilst I accept that the government has attempted to lay out best practice,this paragraph

It is lifelong learning about physical, moral and emotional development. It is
about the understanding of the importance of marriage for family life, stable and
loving relationships, respect, love and care. It is also about the teaching of sex,
sexuality, and sexual health. It is not about the promotion of sexual orientation or
sexual activity – this would be inappropriate teaching.

is not what I understand is what is taught in many schools. The argument often is that so many kids come from unmarried family units that you cannot promote marriage for fear of alienating those kids.Even our church primary school struggled with that .When they showed the channel 4 sex ed material that features 2 couples having babies,both couples pointedly unmarried, we questioned this and said that it would have been better to not even mention the marital status of the couple rather than state they were unmarried, but they said they had to promote all types of partnership. So whilst studies show that kids thrive in stable long term, usually married relationships, schools are loathe to mention this.

vdbfamily you miss my point about Christmas. Like many people you seem to be starting from the position that it's Christian. Therefore it makes sense that all celebrations and cards etc reflect that. If we make cards without jesus on then we are trying to steal it from you.

But it's a combination of many celebrations. I have no problem with you celebrating it in your way, but you can hardly complain if non-christians send cards that are not about worshipping your god.

On the matter of Sex Ed I think you and I are in agreement. I find it worrying that many/most teenage boys now consider a woman who hasn't had surgical enhancement to be ugly/deformed. They seem to have expectations about physical and emotional relationships taken directly from the last porn film they watched.

I'm always saying that education should include a lot more than the physical. It should also start really early in hopes of teaching them the truth before they pick up too much from the media. It should (and sometimes does) cover relationships, responsibility etc.

In recent years that has been hampered by many religious people claiming that the right answer is to tell them nothing at all or to tell them that god forbids it. As though that solves the problem.

So religion hasn't always been the good influence that it intended to be. Especially if those same religious people refuse to discuss sex with their kids at home.

Bigbluestars I guess the whole point is that rather than both of you having a variety of experience good and bad, to start together as a couple who love each other,are physically attracted to each other and are committed to pleasuring each other, but have absolutely no experience previously...you learn together what works for both of you. The thing is when you wait for the committment before the sex,you have lots of time to talk without getting distracted by the physical. It would have bben very obvious to me had my husband been a selfish man who had no thought for my enjoyment.Also if you are in a committed relationship with someone who is not giving you pleasure,surely you just teach them how to do so.It does not seem like rocket science to me but as you say...what do I know? I would not dream of everyone following my example.As Christians we sre told not to expect non-Christians to live like us,why would they? However on the subject of sex, I don't think abstinence for children is just a Christian thing.It is enshrined in law for a start. Our kids have a frighteningly high rate of std's and unwanted pregnancys/morning after pills atc. Surely teaching them that the best thing they can do is wait until they are adults is not 'religious' !

Backonlybriefly....no argument there. Of course there should be a whole range of cards available.Even amongst Christians I know that we all like something different and we always make our own as a fun thing to do with the kids!

Waiting to have sex is a good idea. Not waiting until you get married, but waiting until you know a person first. Of course if mature adults want to have sex with 6 people a day or all at once that's up to them, but anyone who is young and/or emotionally vulnerable should wait until they know the person first.

By young I don't mean below the age of consent. They shouldn't have sex with a partner at all, but the reality is that many will. All we can do is advise and educate so they don't do it blindly and out of ignorance or pressure.

We've had threads before with (usually religious) people saying underage kids should not be given contraception because it causes them to have sex. That's the kind of thing that holds us back from dealing with it effectively.

vdbfamily - re "Maybe make-up and condoms are not in themselves secular !!"

"Maybe"? Do you know what the word "secular" means?

"you reach a point where facts are taught in a moral vacuum"

I wish that point would hurry up and come. Facts should indeed be taught without the influence of morality police.

"Regards make-up,it was only a few years ago that it was banned in most secondary schools... I am sad that this rule has now changed"

And you think that is the fault of secularity? UK isn't secular. Education in the UK is certainly not secular. Schools in UK are mandated to have compulsory collective Christian worship. And makeup has nothing whatsoever with religion or secularity.

"Maybe I lack understanding of what 'secularism' is"

Yes.

The age of consent was introduced to prevent child rape and exploitation and Christians were deeply involved in that cause www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/downloads/aoc_warning.pdf

I know we are not discussing or disagreeing with an age of consent but we can see with the explosion of pornography across the internet that many people are seeing sexual activity in the under 16s as normal and behaviour that should not be discouraged. I had close friends who had sex at 14 and 15 and they were definitely being exploited by older boyfriends or ONS who were 16 and older. Some girls have sex early with consent but many are coerced and encouraged to think it's normal by porn and the culture around them. My friends all told me as adults they regret have sex that young.

Isn't teen pregnancy at a 40 year low? Our best defence against people having sex before they're ready, girls and boys, is frank and thorough sex education. That is shown time and time again. Saying 'it's naughty' doesn't help.

(Why the hell does my iPhone insist on changing every 'sex' to 'sexy' :/)

vb- "It is
about the understanding of the importance of marriage for family life"

But that's just rude.

Marriage may be important to you but not to many- in fact the majority of children are born outside of wedlock.

"to start together as a couple who love each other,are physically attracted to each other and are committed to pleasuring each other, but have absolutely no experience previously...you learn together what works for both of you. "

You see that just highlights your sexual ignorance.
I have known ( and been in love with) some wonderful men who were just really crap in bed.
You have no benchmark if you have had sex with only one man. How would you know?