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?

There are several instances, even on this short thread, Dione of people saying that religious beliefs should be respected. Full stop.

The sweeping generalisations issue should work both ways. But, of course, it doesn't.

Seems to me you just want to pick a fight with the OP, so any effort at conversing with you is a waste of time.

My post at 22:04 was not intended to be arrogant. I certainly don't think it was "uncalled for".

Hak says she is looking for understanding. My post at 22:04 was explaining how she might find that understanding: by asking that person what they meant. Is this not common sense?

Then I suggest, as per my 22:04 post, that the OP (or anyone else) ask that poster what that means (I may have missed the full stop in their posts). I would also point out that their answer is that if an individual, addressing the context of this thread. And should not be extended to people who aren't that individual.

She's asking about the extremely common idea that all religious beliefs should automatically be respected.

Because you have no sensible answer for that, you have gone on the attack.

And, inadvertently, proved her point.

Of an individual not if. Damn these tiny buttons.

So Mumsnet threads cannot ask general questions about ideas. They can only be about specific people and specific conversations?

That's a new one on me. And rather against the T&C.

I could point how little sense you are making by snidely asking if you are OK. But I find that rather childish and I wouldn't be that rude.

Dione, you say "the question is a sweeping generalization", but you can't know it is (according to your odd little rules) unless you ask the person who asked it and they concur. In the meantime (according to your rules)) you can't comment on it or discuss it with others.

I think the best thing is we just ignore your rules and carry on with what we were saying.

I do find it ironic that some Christians seem surprised that other varieties of Christianity exist.

I've been told many times on here that I ought to learn more about different religions before commenting. Usually by people who have grown up with one religion and know almost nothing about the others.

Back, the OP asked "We are always told we should respect other people's beliefs, but... ...what does it mean in this context?"

My point is: Contexts vary. So if you want to get the best answer to this question, then ask it in context. It's fun (or at least interesting) to find out what other people think. You may not agree with them, but you may find out something that you didn't know before.

Respect, of course MNetters can ask "general questions about ideas" and other MNetters can give their opinions. I wasn't being serious about being "queen of the Internet". I'm a MNetter giving my tuppenceworth on this thread.

My "Are you ok?" post was in response to a rather bizarre post from the OP.

Btw Hak, who do you mean when you say We in your OP?

For a moment there I thought I was with the Golgafrinchans discussing what color fire should be and how best to relate to it :)

Actually the reason we have words is so that we can use them for communication. This means that the default position is to assume the speaker means 'respect' when they say 'respect' and 'tin opener' when they say 'tin opener'.

If the speaker feels they are not being understood they can expand on their meaning using even more words, but it's not up to the listener to question the meaning of each and every one.

So... Dione do you feel that all beliefs should be respected just because someone holds them?

Back beliefs vary so widely that I do not think it is possible for everyone to respect all beliefs. However I think it is possible to not disrespect those holding them.

I don't think it as claer cut as that though.

My BIL is a member of the National front and thinks that all black people should be "sent home".

Hard to respect his beliefs or him.

So regardless of the vileness of the belief you still respect the believer?

How about followers of Islam who believe that the penalty for apostasy should be death?

So regardless of the vileness of the belief you still respect the believer.
I did not say that. There are quite a few people that I do not respect.

Back, it is not I who doesn't know what the words mean. It is the OP. That's why she started this thread. And the last one. As she is having difficulties in this regard, I suggested that she clarify it with the specific individual, in the specific context.

Dione The OP is not having difficulties (that I can see), she's addressing a common idea prompted by a conversation with someone else. There's nothing at all wrong with that.

Sorry, but it's really not up to you to decide the validity of threads on this site. If someone has a question to ask then they have the right to ask it, whatever it's provenance.

And, excuse me, but every atheist will tell you (and has done on this thread) that there is a difference between respect for a person and respect for a belief. So I am not quite sure why you think that you saying it suddenly gives the notion respectability.

Personally, I can acknowledge the rights of everyone to hold fast to their beliefs without feeling any compunction to pretend to respect the beliefs myself.

" However I think it is possible to not disrespect those holding them."

"There are quite a few people that I do not respect."

We're definitely in Red Queen territory here......

That sounds on the face of it like a contradiction, but perhaps there is a subtle distinction between not respecting someone and disrespecting them.

I wouldn't respect the NF supporter or the apostate-killer. That doesn't automatically entail that I'd want to treat them with disrespect ... this doesn't in any way mean appeasing them or not arguing forcefully against them, but doing so without stooping to their level. A moral high ground sort of thing maybe? Not sure if that makes sense now I've typed it but I'll let it stand... you don't have to respect it.

It's a bit like this threads on feminist topics where men come and insist on discussing the exact use of word, placement of chairs, whether it should be tea or coffee.........

Maybe the issue comes down to the word "respect".

On the one hand it means having due regard for the rights of others. On the other it means deep admiration.

I certainly have due regard for the rights of others but, as a default setting, that's where it ends. My "deep admiration" for a person or a belief that they hold has to be earned.

So, it's entirely possible to hold both positions simultaneously.

Yes. But the proposition in the thread title 'that we should respect other people's beliefs' is simply fallacious. We absolutely should not respect some beliefs - political, religious, philosophical. Some are mad, bad or dangerous to know. The thing is to challenge such beliefs without being disrespectful of the person or their rights (whether or not you personally respect the individual). You may still get accused of being 'disrespectful' by people who don't want to engage in discussion - that's their problem. If they don't want to help you understand their position, or can't defend their position I guess that's their perogative - you know whether you were actually being disrespectful of them or not.

But that was the point I was trying to make.

We should have due regard for the rights of people to hold on to their beliefs...no matter how bigoted or abhorrent. If they break the law as a consequence (hate crime and incitement etc) and violate the rights of others in the process then we take action. But it's not illegal to be a racist bigot, and neither should it be. That's thought crime.

"Respect" in that instance is not indicative of agreement.

But on the other side of the coin, I fail to see why I should have "respect" as in "deep admiration" as a default position for every one I meet. Why would I? That renders the word meaningless.

I acknowledge rights - I choose what I respect.

Respect, my post gives the point no more validity than yours, the other atheists who have expressed the same view or the believers who have said the same. On this thread and the other thread where this view was put forward. However that explanation doesn't seem to be working for the OP.

I have not passed comment on the validity of this thread, merely reminded the OP that there is already thread about this. It is not an uncommon thing on MN. If you think I have contravened guidelines, feel free to report.

Bigdorrit, far from telling the OP to "shut up" I have been asking her questions.

I think everyone can see precisely what you are doing here, Dione. You have some kind of previous issue with the OP and are using very obvious passive aggressive "questions" to get it off your chest. Nobody here is stupid, you know.

But it is a shame that you have succeeded in hijacking what could have been an interesting conversation. I strongly suspect this was your motive. Very mature.