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?

As far as I know divorce is just as popular among Christians as atheists. Surely they'd have no/very little divorce. Interestingly I think it's other faiths that have the least divorce. I think the correlation is about support systems. There just isn't the data to back up what you're saying.

And it comes down to prejudice again. You cannot underestimate the power of prejudice. That a certain group have more difficulties than the majority will inherently have roots in societal prejudice. You're saying i'm bound to have marriage difficulties because we've both had sexual partners and you're not. That's quite offensive isn't it.

CoteDAzur I am happy to concede that maybe I do not understand the word secular but I think I am probably using the term with a small 's'. So whilst I accept that we still have church and government linked in a non-secular way, I think that a large proportion of the uk population are secularised in the way they live their life. The reason I mentioned condoms and make-up are because if we were totally governed by religious ideals,schools would be teaching abstinence and marriage and would still be banning make-up. It may be simplistic but because the Mary Whitehouse type voices have long been ridiculed and silenced,our society has become more and more sexualised. Advertising,magazines,music videos,t.v,internet etc. They seems to be no avoiding it. Young girls think that it is abnormal to walk around without foundation and mascara because every role model they look to does it. Whilst I realise there are plenty non-religious women who do not use make-up and lots of religious women who do, I think statistically,religious women are far less likely to. This is because we are taught that we are beautiful just the way we are are are discouraged from prioritising our physical appearance over what is in our hearts. Also kids from religious backgrounds are slightly less likely to be exposed to the same degree of unsolicited sexual propaganda. I say this because I know quite a few Christian families who do not have tv.(including myself) We let the kids watch programmes they want to see via catch-up tv on the internet but this means that they are not watching adverts or any tv they have not specifically chosen. Their magazine choices tend to be Beano or National Geographic and they tend to listen to music not watch the videos.We will talk about the lyrics if they are OTT. Whilst I can see that the Secular society would not hold themselves responsible for the over sexualisation of our society, I personally believe that when you try to silence a voice that has had a 'moral' influence on society then there are consequences. And before anyone shouts at me,I am not saying that Secularists have no morals!!!!

Ah a feminist argument from a christian.

Takes the biscuit.

Wow bigblue, how patronising!

I don't see why. The christian church has been the single biggest misogynistic force in Western society.

In YOUR opinion maybe.

www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us/focus-findings/marriage/premarital-sex-and-divorce.aspx

I realise this is a 'Christian' report but it cites several studies.It is true that divorce rates for Christians and non Christians are fairly similar but it is also true that a large and increasing number of Christians are not virgins when they marry.
The comments from various people about sexual partners being crap in bed in some ways highlights the point I am making. The more sexual partners you have,the more you are likely to compare their sexual prowess. If you have no-one to compare with, you are more likely to be happy with what you have. It is societies who make relationships 'all about the sex' that have much higher divorce rates. Marriage to me is not about sex,that is one aspect of it,and if my ignorance leaves me happy to be with the man I married(because I don't know what I might be missing) then I am happy with that too.
For what it's worth, I pass no judgement on people who chose not to marry but I think if statistics show that children do best within a stable married relationship and that married relationships are more stable than co-habiting ones, we should not be afraid to say that out loud.
This is quite a balanced report but admittedly american and 10 years old.

www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/states/0086.pdf

Bigbluestars, maybe the words 'longterm commitment' would be more appropriate than marriage.

Now I am confused...or maybe just ignorant.What is the feminist argument?

"If you have no-one to compare with, you are more likely to be happy with what you have."

Ignorance is bliss.

Can only take so many suggestions that Christians are better people before I get this urge to point out some facts.

The age of consent was introduced to prevent child rape and exploitation and Christians were deeply involved in that cause

Yes and quite a few of them on the wrong side. We are still dealing with the fallout from discovering that not only were church members abusing children on a large scale, but that the church had become an organised support system for these crimes. That part of obedience to god and the church meant helping child abuse continue. That in areas where the churches had most influence they were able to use god's word to keep up the supply of children and silence parents and police.

That support system is even now trying to block the various justice systems round the world from knowing the full truth.

The Vatican was not that keen on the age of consent btw as they kept it at 12 until about 2013.

kids from religious backgrounds are slightly less likely to be exposed to the same degree of unsolicited sexual propaganda

You mean like when the priests explained to the children that telling anyone what they did to them was a sin?

if we were totally governed by religious ideals,schools would be teaching abstinence and marriage and would still be banning make-up

Yes teaching abstinence and total ignorance on the principle that if you don't teach them anything at all then they won't know how.

And how would the churches enforce this in an age when kids can see how others live elsewhere in the world? Oh wait we know how don't we. They certainly had no trouble with discipline in the magdalene laundries.

I think statistically,religious women are far less likely to [wear make up]

Yeah all those non-christian women are sluts aren't they?

We can tell that Christians are intrinsically more moral by the crime figures which show... oh wait. They show we had to lock up more Christians for crimes than anyone else.

And before anyone shouts at me,I am not saying that Secularists have no morals!

No, you are saying that we can't help being less moral because you have god advising you. That you are more moral because you carry around a book that condones and gloats over child abuse, infanticide, rape, slavery, genocide, bigotry and deception.

Have I seriously suggested anywhere that Christians are better people? When I talk about marriage,there is no suggestion that only Christians marry. A Christian should never consider themselves to be better than anyone else. In fact Christians,if anything ,should be more aware of how much they fail to be good people, seeing as what they are aiming for is to live like Jesus which is a pretty high standard. And did I anywhere suggest that wearing make-up is slutty,of course not,I suggested it would be good that we let our children know that they are beautiful anyway and do not need it at school.

pretty high standard

So you think your standard is higher than a non-believer. Evidence? How is your life going to be demonstrably superior to mine. Give examples.

Jesus' ideals weren't unusual in other belief systems of that time. And as I pointed out the other day Jesus was happy with the idea of employers beating their employees and used racism casually.

"Give examples".

A two word sentence like that sounds snappy and short, and quite honestly demanding.

"Evidence?"

A one word sentence like that also sounds in your face.

Vdb- at the risk of sounding patronising- could you say what "secular" means to you? Because there do seem to be some crossed wires on this thread.

Sorry, not meant to sound that way.

"if we were totally governed by religious ideals,schools would be teaching abstinence and marriage and would still be banning make-up"

You mean like in a religious fundamentalist state like Saudi Arabia? Well yes, the UK isn't like that, which I assume you find to be a good thing. Or would you rather your daughter was banned from sex before marriage, under threat of legal persecution?

"Whilst I realise there are plenty non-religious women who do not use make-up and lots of religious women who do, I think statistically,religious women are far less likely to."

Correlation isn't causation. This is a very important sentence that you need to learn by heart, understand, and apply to every aspect of your life.

If girls from more religious backgrounds use less makeup, that may very well be because they are under far more pressure from their families to not wear it. I don't know if that is a good thing. Wait a few years and see if those girls are still makeup-free when they break free of the family home.

My very devout grandmother wore makeup and had her hair coloured until the last month of her life, aged almost 90. I'm a lifelong atheist and only ever wear makeup on special nights out. The most religious person I know who teaches Sunday school and actually believes in transubstantiation wears full makeup all the time, even at gym classes. Your generalisation is just not true.

"I personally believe that when you try to silence a voice that has had a 'moral' influence on society then there are consequences"

How exactly is the Christian 'voice' silenced in the UK? I'm really curious to hear your answer to this.

silence a voice that has had a moral influence

Their are many sources of moral instruction on a child's life. How do you think people outside of Christianity function in society? But you don't even need to mention any god to talk about morals. I'm guessing PSHE covers morals without ever mentioning a deity so children are exposed to moral instruction at school routinely without religion.

Who is trying to silence Christians and how are they doing it?

My life is not likely to be 'superior' to yours.We are presumably each living our lives to the best of our abilities, based on what each of us sees as important. As I attempted to evidence before when you made the claim that Jesus endorsed violence, I completely refute that from his actions and teaching. He was also not racist but was happy to spend time with anyone and everyone,much to the shock of his disciples (Samaritan woman at the well) (good Samaritan story) (Zacchaeus) (lepers) (prostitutes)
The high standards that Jesus demands in my opinion are that we are to love others as we love ourselves.This is unconditional love and it does not necessarily have obvious benefits for us personally. I am able to love the relative who went to prison for sexually abusing me. I have friends who are in/out court for violence,a friend with severe learning difficulties,one on sex offenders register.These are people I care about who don't have many other friends in life. Sometimes I spend time with them and come home almost crying with frustration as my time with a job and 3 young children is very precious,and when you spend time with needy people it is never enough for them and they often guilt trip you about not spending enough time with them, but I would never shut them out of my life.My most aggressive friend who had a horrendously abusive childhood, has said the most horrible things to me over the years,she has physically attacked me,once when I was pregnant, she has threatened my children,she makes vile sexual suggestions and yet I know that I need to love and care for her because most people don't, and interestingly enough, most of the people I know who do care for her are from local churches,including 2 catholic priests,one who ended up taking a years sabbatical as she was causing so much stress in his life. I have always said that I don't choose my friends but they choose me and if God wants me to love the less lovely people in this world then I will do so.
I also think as Christians we are to try and be unselfish with our time and money. This is an atheist link to why Christians give more time and money and I don't disagree with the article but I don't think Christians do it just because they are TOLD TO more often.
mostlyrational.net/2010/04/are-religious-people-more-charitable-than-non-believers/
My personal opinion is that Jesus was considered to be pretty 'counter cultural' in his teachings and actions. I also accept that no Christian ever gets anywhere near being truly Christlike in unconditional love and selflessness, especially me!

Christians often have the resources and

Sorry meant to say about the networks of people that help them mobilise various support. But that it's not something intrinsic to Christians. I don't need a belief in a god to reach out to hurt people. I just need empathy. I genuinely feel a concern and it's really that simple. Which is why you don't need a religion to teach people how to live in society.

Jesus referring to a Canaanite as a dog isn't nice. And the positive values he portrayed were already in existence in other belief systems.

Who is trying to silence Christians and how are they doing it?

Sorry..cross post..had not seem any of those questions.
Hakluyt, Secular is 'not connected with religious or spiritual' so generally the uk is not considered secular because government and church are still linked, but as a Christian viewing RL in the UK I see it as becoming more secular, I guess because more people are happy to live outside of the rules that maybe religion has imposed for years. (not judging that,maybe it is more honest!)
Cotedazur I would prefer that my child is allowed to remain a child until she becomes an adult,slowly learning what she needs to know to make wise decisions when she gets there.I would prefer,as I suggest to her,that she use minimal make-up at the age of 11 and save it for special occasions rather than feel the need to wear it every day because everyone else does.I would prefer she understand that she is truly beautiful without any make-up.I suspect you are right that girls from a religious background are discouraged from make-up.I think that is a good thing within reason,particularly at a young age but as a child starts to reach adulthood you let them make such decisions for themselves.I would still say it is good to tell my 11 year old that she is beautiful without it.(For what its worth,she went into town with a friend this weekend and spent her birthday money on make-up brushes,foundation and some hair wax) I pick my battles carefully and as it is within school rules I allow her to wear light make-up but I still tell her regularly that she is more beautiful without it.
Regarding the Christian voice being silenced, I guess again I see a difference between what happens at a government level and what happens in real life.I can see why atheists would wish to have all non-elected positions of influence removed and then people of faith would have to get themselves elected like any other and I have no objection to this really.What I see in real life is that in an increasingly 'secular' society at ground level, Christians are more afraid to say what they think about issues,particularly moral issues for fear of being mocked,misunderstood,accused of being bigoted and even losing jobs.
Turning the question around slightly so I am not always on the defensive,I would be quite interested to hear what those of you who feel the Christian voice has an undue influence on our society, feel is currently being unnecessarily imposed upon you (other than school eligibilty criteria and acts of worship which I accept are an issue)