Who would Jesus have voted for in the presidential elections?

[Gustaf]

Basically: lack of respect (no, actually more like active disrespect) towards the founding of a belief system = lack of respect for the believers of that religion, ideology or etc. Two points follow on from this, the first is that if person a actively disrespects the beliefs of person b, then person a has no right to expect person b to respect his beliefs. The second is this:

Well, if your very definition entails your conclusion...that's no fun. 

And this matters because it raises other questions; the motives of a secularist who has no respect for the religious should be questioned just as much as the motives of a political-christian with no respect for the non-religious. But if there is respect (in either case) then there is no real reason to worry.

I agree.  Maybe I didn't see that as your over-arching point because it seemed so unobjectionable.  Sorry if I glossed over it because of this.

Here's a question.  Under your construct is it possible for a Christian to respect a non-theist, when faith entails being effectively sure of your moral beliefs?  I don't see how that's any different than the treatment given by atheists to Christians.

Clearly plenty of Christians find my beliefs on certain things to be unquestionably immoral, and by your definition there is an automatic disrespect.

I'm guessing Al's point is something else than you think. I'll try giving an example. I have a friend who's a very active socialist. We basically disagree on every political issue around. He comes from a family where everyone is communist. The foundations of his belief system is basically that poor people should be taken care of and that people shouldn't be so obsessed with money. That I can respect. On a personal level we're even pretty much in agreement on how one should live one's life. I have several friends, in fact pretty much all my friends, who are atheist. I understand where they're coming from, having an essentially empiricist world-view and being fostered in a very non-religious society like Sweden. That is, I understand and can respect the foundations of their beliefs.

If you, as an atheist, regard religious people as suffering from a mental impairment (like Opebo) that would be an example of not showing respect, for instance.

[Alcon]

I'm guessing Al's point is something else than you think. I'll try giving an example. I have a friend who's a very active socialist. We basically disagree on every political issue around. He comes from a family where everyone is communist. The foundations of his belief system is basically that poor people should be taken care of and that people shouldn't be so obsessed with money. That I can respect. On a personal level we're even pretty much in agreement on how one should live one's life. I have several friends, in fact pretty much all my friends, who are atheist. I understand where they're coming from, having an essentially empiricist world-view and being fostered in a very non-religious society like Sweden. That is, I understand and can respect the foundations of their beliefs.

What you just said is what I'm arguing.

You probably regard your socialist friend's politics as wrong and probably dangerous when put into practice.  But you still respect him for the intent behind his belief, I'd wager, right?  Because you think he's fundamentally decent, and perhaps his beliefs are unavoidable products of growing up in a certain environment - as, statistics would suggest, most beliefs are.

So, unless we define "respect" as including thinking something is dangerous and stupid but well-intentioned, I have to disagree with Al...you see where I'm going better, now?

If you, as an atheist, regard religious people as suffering from a mental impairment (like Opebo) that would be an example of not showing respect, for instance.

I'm not an atheist and I don't.  Of course, the definition of a "mental impairment" is another matter entirely.  I may think certain beliefs are irrational but they don't form enough of a schism or threat for me to consider them a "mental impairment."  Besides, I just don't care.  There are more important things to fight against in life than perhaps-misled beliefs that probably do more good than harm.

[War on Want]

Why do you hate Jesus?

Because he was immoral.

I don't believe in human sacrifice and I refuse to accept them, frankly.

WTF!? Go get a life. Without Jesus, America would be rules by Pagans that would probably persecute you Athiets, asshole. Haven't you noticed that almost every single Christian nation is a Liberal Democracy. We respect your rights.

Stop being a fundie hack.

I am not. I just overreacted there. I am not a big fan of my lord and saviour being called immoral.

[Hash]

Why do you hate Jesus?

Because he was immoral.

I don't believe in human sacrifice and I refuse to accept them, frankly.

WTF!? Go get a life. Without Jesus, America would be rules by Pagans that would probably persecute you Athiets, asshole. Haven't you noticed that almost every single Christian nation is a Liberal Democracy. We respect your rights.

Stop being a fundie hack.

I am not. I just overreacted there. I am not a big fan of my lord and saviour being called immoral.

Isn't calling almost every Christian nation a liberal democracy not hackish? Is Angola a liberal democracy? Is Burundi? Is the CAR? Is the DRC? Is Congo? Is Cuba? Is Equatorial Guinea? Is Gabon? Is Malawi? Is Namibia? Is Mozambique? Is Swaziland? Is Uganda? Is Zambia? Is Zimbabwe? That's quite a lot.

You might also want a dictionary.

[Alcon]

I am not. I just overreacted there. I am not a big fan of my lord and saviour being called immoral.

Then defend it, dude.

It's what he taught you to do.

[Gustaf]

I'm guessing Al's point is something else than you think. I'll try giving an example. I have a friend who's a very active socialist. We basically disagree on every political issue around. He comes from a family where everyone is communist. The foundations of his belief system is basically that poor people should be taken care of and that people shouldn't be so obsessed with money. That I can respect. On a personal level we're even pretty much in agreement on how one should live one's life. I have several friends, in fact pretty much all my friends, who are atheist. I understand where they're coming from, having an essentially empiricist world-view and being fostered in a very non-religious society like Sweden. That is, I understand and can respect the foundations of their beliefs.

What you just said is what I'm arguing.

You probably regard your socialist friend's politics as wrong and probably dangerous when put into practice.  But you still respect him for the intent behind his belief, I'd wager, right?  Because you think he's fundamentally decent, and perhaps his beliefs are unavoidable products of growing up in a certain environment - as, statistics would suggest, most beliefs are.

So, unless we define "respect" as including thinking something is dangerous and stupid but well-intentioned, I have to disagree with Al...you see where I'm going better, now?

If you, as an atheist, regard religious people as suffering from a mental impairment (like Opebo) that would be an example of not showing respect, for instance.

I'm not an atheist and I don't.  Of course, the definition of a "mental impairment" is another matter entirely.  I may think certain beliefs are irrational but they don't form enough of a schism or threat for me to consider them a "mental impairment."  Besides, I just don't care.  There are more important things to fight against in life than perhaps-misled beliefs that probably do more good than harm.

The "you" in the last sentence was a third-person "you" not an Alcon "you".

I see what your point is and perhaps I'm reading things wrong here, but I thought Al was talking about the foundations of beliefs rather than the beliefs themselves?

[Alcon]

The "you" in the last sentence was a third-person "you" not an Alcon "you".

Ah, gotcha.

I see what your point is and perhaps I'm reading things wrong here, but I thought Al was talking about the foundations of beliefs rather than the beliefs themselves?

I'm not sure to what you're referring with that.

[Gustaf]

But whether or not what you say is true, his original assertion (Jesus was immoral) is unaffected.  It's not as if he's forced to be pragmatic here; he can't alter world history, so what pragmatic negative is "bad-mouthing Jesus" going to have?  None.  So he might as well say what he believes.

Though he should be aware that a lack of respect for the founding of a belief system* of any sort (religious, political, all the same in this regard) is the same as having no respect for the beliefs of its believers (except in a highly vacuous sense; "I respect your right to believe that" and so on). And if someone has no respect for the beliefs of someone else, why should the second person have any respect for the beliefs of the first?

*As something seperate from any institutions that might go with it. That's actually quite important.

The bolded part was what I was referring to. But reading on maybe that part wasn't as vital to the debate as I thought it was.

[Alcon]

I see where you were going, but I assumed he meant "founding" as in "the act of being founded," not as in "foundation."  Which is a different matter entirely. 

I really hope this hasn't been all an incorrect-paradigm issue.