Who would Jesus have voted for in the presidential elections?

[Alcon]

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.

I'm not sure how that has any bearing on Jesus's morality, or lack thereof.

He didn't say that Christians had installed some sort of draconian regime; he said that their founder was immoral.  While I'd be interesting to hear him support his claim, what you're talking about is totally unrelated.

[Alcon]

Well all that I meant was that even if he thinks Jesus is immoral, he shouldn't badmouth him so much, as without him there wouldn't be Christians, and maybe not Democracy in the modern sense of it.

Perhaps you're right on the democracy part, but you're being needlessly reactionary.

I don't see anything wrong with bad-mouthing the means, even if they result in ends that you don't mind so much.

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.

[Alcon]

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).

I disagree, actually, although that depends on the sense.  There are few things near enough to total evil that I have no respect for them whatsoever.  But my respect for people's beliefs are not necessarily proportional at all to my respect for the beliefs themselves.

And is there a difference between dismissing a belief as absurd (as he is, and as Christians effectively do by denying the realistic possibility of being incorrect) and disrespecting it?  Because dismissiveness and disrespect are different beasts.

[Alcon]

If you do not have at least some respect for the founding of a particular belief, then how can you have any respect for the belief? And if you don't have any respect for the belief, how can you have any respect for the believer, beyond mindless platitudes? And if you don't have any respect for the believer, why should you expect them to have any respect for your beliefs?

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 don't find "I respect you even though I find what you're saying absurd, and maybe dangerous" to be a "platitude."  I find it to be an important part of a functioning human society.

Proportionality has nothing to do with it.

Unless I'm missing something, that doesn't really make sense as a reply to what I said.

There is obviously a difference between not having a belief and not respecting the same belief. I've a lot of respect for, by way of example, Islam, but I'm certainly not a Muslim.

I suppose this is a difference in "respect," then.

Does belief that something is silly and dangerous, but well-intentioned, entail "respect"?  I don't think so.  Perhaps you need to define "respect."

[Alcon]

What is "despite thinking that what you believe in is both stupid and dangerous, I respect you anyway" if it's not a platitude?

An essential part of functioning in human society, as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, you've not responded to my main point (or at least the point I was trying to make) here.

Then I've probably missed it (I try not to weasel out of answering to points).  Sorry.  I'd appreciate a restatement or a backquote.

[Alcon]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.