Should I respect other people's religions?

Question

My point of view is that there is no reason to believe any god exists without evidence.

So I find religions a very irrational idea and I mostly heard people saying

We have to respect other people's religion

But I have barely heard:

We don't need to respect other people's religion but just respect people

despite it is not unheard for me. My question is:

Is either of them correct? If so, why?

Edit for Clarification: When I say 'not respecting a religion' I mean talking badly about or discrediting it, both of which I think differ from not tolerating a religion or its practitioners.

Answer 1

But I barely heard:

We don't need to respect other people's religion but just respect people

There is a whole movement called the New Atheists, who have a similar view to this (Richard Dawkins is probably the most recognized New Atheist). Their central idea is, we don't need to respect other people's religion and in fact we shouldn't respect other people's religion because religion is not only wrong, but harmful. They think religion is harmful because
a) it stands in the way of science (Creationism vs Evolution, etc...)
and b) it leads to fanaticism and terrorism.

The only thing that should be respected is other people's freedom, as long as their freedom doesn't harm other people.

On the other hand, the current mainstream position in Western democracies is (e.g. Article 10 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen in France (1789), or the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (1791)):

We have to respect other people's religion.

There are 2 unspoken assumptions here:

• That a certain amount of religiosity is inevitable and necessary in any society, hence such religious tolerance is a necessary component of any modern pluralistic society.
• And that there is a reasonable definition of what an established religion is, and that established religious practices are not inherently bad. Nobody is going to respect a religion whose beliefs fall too much outside of the accepted notions of religious belief. For example one should accept that a woman has to wear a hijab to work, and exempt her from following the workplace dress code in the process. But no one is going to accept the claim that I have to wear a spider-man costume to work everyday because I believe that Peter Parker is the son of God who has decreed that I dress that way. If the Aztecs were still around today, no Western society is going to allow them to practice human sacrifice in the name of religious tolerance.

I think probably the best (and most workable) answer to your dilemma was the one given by Karl Popper in his book The Open Society and its Enemies:

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. -- The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4

Answer 2

I want to add something to the answer of @AlexanderSKing:

The question may be reformulated as "Should I be dogmatic?".

Dogmatism can be understood as stating a "truth" and not only defending it (by rational argument), but also discrediting every other weltanschauung.

In not respecting a religion, you implicitly are dogmatic: You say that the foundations of this religion are untrue and the foundations of your weltanschauung are true. Dawkins is a good example for a dogmatic position. But the point Popper is making is that as long as the opponent is not dogmatic, you can tolerate him and his weltanschauung, taking him back into rational discourse.

But in not tolerating religion, are you better than catholic church in crusades and inquisition or islamic terrorists of Boko Haram or IS regarding dogmatism and its related mindset?

This question is not as rhetoric as it seems, though of course not accurate. But for the sake of the argument go on reading ;). You will, I assume, never establish your view by force. But you cannot respect the person by disrespecting her religion either. Because the weltanschauung is an integral part of the person, it is a part of the autonomy of this person. And dogmatism is in fact rejecting a part of a person's autonomy, and by this her dignity. They do reject the dignity in total, but assuming that dignity is absolute, the connection, although harsh, is there.

The borderline of your freedom is the freedom of others. Popper is reformulating the old idea of a social contract: (Hobbes), Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Rawls. As long as the weltanschauung of others does not harm you in practical execution, you have to tolerate it, no matter how your feelings about it might be. That is why social contract theories are often theories of natural law, restricting practices, not opinions. That's the reason why the above mentioned cannot possibly be tolerated even in the widest sense. But dogmatism should not be tolerated in any way.

I also can't understand people that believe in religion. Sometimes their deep belief and the actions based on it even make me angry. But in order not to be dogmatic, I have to tolerate their belief as long as it does not have direct consequences for my practices (or, in a wider sense, autonomy). I have to respect their autonomy and dignity.

Edit regarding the dogmatism/respect dichotomy

In some sense, tolerance is a direct outcome of respect. Respect in the kantian (and most philosophical) meaning(s) is not to be confused with the feeling of sympathy. You do not have to like a person in order to respect her. For Kant, respect is due to the dignity every moral agent (i.e. person) has. And you do not have to think that there is a God to act respectful towards religious persons and their religious sentiments. See more modern approaches like Rawls or Axel Honneth's Theory of Acknowledgement which are also working with respect.
It is not disrespectful to say that you think that their belief is wrong, it is disrespectful to say that your truth is objective and they are talking nonsense.

You should rather ask for the meaning of what they say. And if they are not dogmatic, it will be that they believe in the existence and that there are proofs for the existence of God. This will be the point you will be able to enter a rational discourse with one another.
Dogmatism in a more traditional understanding is saying that a particular religion is not only about statements to believe in, but about actual objective facts.

This whole argumentation is from a kantian view with kantian concepts and terms, the terms are well stated in his Metaphysics of Morals, part 1, Ak. 221-28 or in this argumentation. They are technical, philosophical terms. Do not confuse them with common language usage. And this argumentation is deliberately overdoing it to point out the problems and differences of both the positions of the opener as well as the kantian answer.

Answer 3

Unfortunately, I think many of the previous answers aren't quite focusing on the question as asked. The term "respect" can mean many things. The OP asks specifically for:

When I say not respecting a religion I mean talking bad about it or discrediting it.

Of course, there are many different means of "talking bad" that we need to distinguish.

• Should we point out flaws, shortcomings, or otherwise difficult problems in one or more religion? Yes! Whether one is religious at all, or part of a particular religion under criticism, this is the process by which one discovers truth.
• What flaws should we point out? We should never point out flaws that we are largely ignorant about. For example, as a Catholic, I can acknowledge that the Crusades were far from perfect; almost inevitably though, criticism comes from people who either (1) have never read a book about the Crusades or (2) the only bits they know about the Crusades come from those that have an axe to grind against the Catholic Church. For one to respect a religion (or any intellectual tradition, for that matter), criticisms should focus on things that one is relatively well informed about.
• How should we point out these flaws? We should always do so charitably - meaning, (1) with an eye towards seeking truth (and not just being right), and (2) looking at the best arguments offered, not attacking a straw-man.

Of course, all of the above is just common sense on how to have a productive philosophical debate about anything.

Answer 4

As a philosopher I'd suggest you first define the term God. The whole discussion would be ruled by your definition. Also you need to define what do you define as "respect". But lets look at your question regardless.

You say there is no evidence of God. First (as a philosopher) you could consider that you know no evidence and many people do not see any evidence. So (as a philosopher) you could consider that there at least might be people that have such evidence. That's one thing.

The other thing is that you cannot rule out any options just because you have no evidence. That means your position (that there is no God) is not fundamentally worth more.

So I don't find it very wise to behave disrespectfully to other people or other people religions in such circumstances. And if you do have the desire to behave disrespectfully that may likely mean you're trying to prove things to yourself by convincing others. Usually a well convinced and balanced person does not have a great desire to discredit others' beliefs.

just my 2 cents

Answer 5

A great number of nations base their constitution explicitly on the set of humans rights. Or they are members of the United Nations and have subscribed to the UNO-declaration of human rights.

In these nations the people are in duty to respect the rights of their companion fellows, in particular the right to adhere to or to abandon a distinguished religion. Moreover, nobody must be privileged or discriminated due to his religious choice.

According to these rights one has to respect other people on a legal base.

On the other hand - and particularly in a philosophical context - no religion or worldview should be considered sacrosanct and exempted from critique. Because I consider questioning, argumentation and also critique the best means for understanding different worldviews and enabling a rational choice on the field of religion.

Answer 6

If one considers the larger view, that religions represent a particular view on the world, as do philosophies; then the concept translates into respecting other worldviews or weltenschauungs.

What is the ethical basis of such respect or tolerance?

One might point to the golden rule - do as you would unto others as you would want done unto you; but not thought through persons but through worldviews.

To which, one might argue, as you have is not better to respect persons rather than worldviews; to which one might reply the two aren't mutually exclusive - and the relationship between one and the other and between is complex.

Answer 7

We don't need to respect other people's religion but just respect people

As Alexander explained, this is a position taken by Dawkins and "new atheist" movement. And this position makes sense.

We can't "respect" religion. Even religious people don't respect other religions. A catholic will find dogmas of Later-days Saint Church utterly absurds, but their own dogmas will seem also nonsense from an external point of view.

Even is we don't respect religion (even if we consider religion harmful), we have to respect people and especially freedom of religion. It is essential to be able to peacefully live together.

But that's not so simple.

Most religious people feels offended when you claim there is no god. And well, you just said they believe nonsenses, so they may think you consider them stupid. (historically, many highly intelligent intellectuals have believed nonsense.)

They also feel offended when you make fun of their dogmas and taboos. It's a difficult concept for them to understand that their religious taboos are not universal and don't apply to people not sharing their faith. Or to understand that laughing can be considered more important than praying.

So we have to respect people, but we offend them anyway, just because we don't share their belief and we want to be able to tell it. So be it.

Answer 8

From a pragmatic point of view, we live in a multicultural, multi-faith world, in which religion is among the things that many people find most personally important. If we don't agree to respect each others' religions, regardless of our personal opinions about those religions, it will make it almost impossible for us to interact peaceably with anyone of different beliefs.

Answer 9

To get along with me, you need respect my religion no more nor less than I respect your irreligion. You should check out who Dawkins, et. al., are so you know what Alexander King is referring to.

If we let each other bring up our kids, within societal norms, but with respect to our own world view, we'll get along. If some of us force the others to rear the others' kids in accordance to their own world view, we won't get along. We need to respect each other's world views at least to that extent.

What are those "societal norms"? They vary with societies and some societies are nasty and oppressive. But if someone's supposed religion requires or excuses some practice like human sacrifice or even adults using kids for sex, I don't care what they think about their religion, I am for the State intervening. to that extent, I do not respect their religion.

In a pluralistic society, it can be sometimes hard to come to a consensus regarding what domains of activity are protected and what are not. I feel we do pretty well in the U.S., but had not always done so well. Religious pacifists were not granted space to practice their pacifism until the mid 20th century (WW2). Even today there are issues regarding parochial schooling and the State's interest in accreditation.

There are religions, even various quasi-Christian denominations, that I do not fully respect. But I respect them enough to agree to disagree peacefully and to provide mutual dignity.

Answer 10

You don't agree with their beliefs, because you find them irrational. Finding them irrational is not disrespectful. Voicing disagreements kindly, and with the right choice of words, also would not be disrespectful in my view. For example, your choice of the word "irrational" instead of "dumb".

PS: There are very rational arguments for following a religious life, too.

PS 2: You haven't exhausted all religions in your search, so you can not conclude they are all irrational. Maybe witnessing a miracle will convince you!

Answer 11

What does it mean to respect a person? The definition of respect is "regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others".

If a person wishes to cover their head for religious reasons, or they wish to not work on a Sunday, then to allow them the freedom to do so is a sign of respect.

I think most people would agree that the above is reasonable, unless the person's wishes are to do harm on others.

What about respecting someone's ability to decide for themself? Every person makes their own mind up about what their beliefs are. And their beliefs are influenced by their experiences, their worldview and many other factors. It is not possible to completely understand in full the motivations behind a choice to ascribe to a specific religion (or none at all). One cannot presume to completely understand someone else, and no person can perfectly, accurately portray their opinion in words in a fashion so ideal that everyone listening will be able to understand their point of view in its complete entirety. People are complex, their opinions are complex, and it's necessary to keep that in mind when discussing stuff like this.

I think that respecting a person also means giving them the benefit of a doubt that they are not crazy and that their decision to choose their religion is justified in their own mind, even if one doesn't understand their thought process, or even if they can't satisfactorily describe their opinion.

With this in mind, when one approaches someone to discuss these things, it shouldn't be with an attitude of "I'm going to convince you I'm better" or "If only you saw things my way, the right way", because just those thoughts themselves show disrespect toward the person. It essentially means you're assuming that you are better able to make decisions like this than they are, and that their ability to think and reason is lesser than yours.

And this I think is where the distinction lies. There is nothing wrong with discussing religion and questioning eachother about beliefs, but it is necessary to do so with a respectful attitude, remembering that the other person is just as complex, and to give them the benefit of a doubt that they are able to make their own decisions. This is what is means to respect them as a person, and assume that their ability to make their own choices about their religion is just as good as our own.

Answer 12

We can use these definitions of respect to make this an easier question to answer.

If you mean 'refrain from interfering', then I would have to answer no. Religions may require people to do things that go against laws or accepted norms. A religion requiring people to kill the poor would not be one I would be happy to have in my local community.

Religions could also just be really strange (from my point of view). So in terms of 'holding them in high regard', again I think no would have to be the correct answer.

You can respect people's freedom of thought and freedom of expression perfectly well without having to make special allowances for concepts and ideas classified as religion.

To reply to the comment below: It is irrelevant if one specific religion or all of them happen to promote 'good' values. The question asks whether we have to respect every possible religious belief.

Answer 13

Because of the use of the word "should," we are engaging in a moral or ethical issue. For purposes of communication, I like to rely on a utilitarian ethical approach. Most people can at least recognize utilitarianism as having some value, even if they elect to declare that their personal moral system supersedes it. Thus, utilitarianism provides a decent common ground to at least begin the discussion from.

Of course, utilitarianism is built on the concept that acts have utility, a quantifiable sense of value. Any discussion of utilitarianism would be remiss if it did not include a discussion as to how to arrive at the value of a given act.

A key question in such a discussion is whether we know everything we need to correctly assign a utility. Very often there is some element of the unknown involved in the process, and it is markedly difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at an agreement as to how to handle this unknown. This is doubly true in the case where multiple individuals have experienced different sets of events in their life, leading to different unknowns.

Thus it should be clear that utilitarianism offers us little reason to believe our beliefs have any more utility than another's beliefs unless you account for selfish utilitarian arguments (I should protect my own beliefs and destroy others' beliefs because they may try to destroy mine). One would need to supersede this argument with a different moral code to arrive at a different outcome.

The debate between whether one's utilitarian system of values should be "selfish" is a much more nuanced debate, which has fewer clear cut answers. If one is not interested in exploring that side of the debate, the remaining solution is to coexist with other religions. The concept behind the English word "respect" has been found to be an effective one for generating peaceful coexistence between disparate groups, so it is a recommended course of action. It also has an added benefit of being a useful concept as one explores the "selfish" side of the arguments, helping to identify potential win-win scenarios that can otherwise be quite difficult to discover.

So in the end, you should do whatever should be done by a moral code. However, utilitarianism offers a least-common-denominator reason to suggest that respecting others' religions may have utility, so that can at least form a departure point for more in depth analysis.

Answer 14

In general terms I am neutral in terms of respect towards religions. They are just another instrument to help us to navigate. However, my neutrality stops when religions stop to be tolerant or when religions are tolerant but their members are not. Among other authors who follow I think this line of thinking are Mark (yes, that one of the Bible), John Rawls, Eduardo Paz Ferreira.

Anyway maybe persons such as Graham Harman got it right with the concept of "God to come" a "God that does not exist YET".

But Saint Shrodinger could be right ☺

Answer 15

You should respect other religions for one particular reason:

The longevity and success of The Establishment Clause:

I have often said that The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Bill Rights, is an Amendment within an Amendment, in that there are 3 things that define the Constitutional identity of the American citizenry: Religious freedom, the Freedom of Speech, as well as a Free Press.

The 1st Amendment opens with the legal guarantee of Religious freedom from Governmental rule by "Not establishing, nor preventing, the free exercise of Religion". This was unprecedented language and was designed to allow for the Diversity of religious expression. In other words, the Establishment Clause, in just a few words, paved the foundations for a Religiously heterodox country, thereby distinguishing it from the rest of the world and their Religious bureaucracies.

So why respect religion? Well, respect and tolerance, have been central to the longevity and success of the 1st amendment. In the United States, sizable communities with diverse religious backgrounds had and still have to find a way to live with and among each other peacefully. Two people of different religious backgrounds may wish each other a happy and healthy holiday or may find a way to use religiously generic sounding language to comfort a friend or colleague during a stressful time in their life. While the rituals and theological presuppositions may differ between the two people, they somehow, are able to speak with each other amicably, tolerantly and yes, even respectfully towards each other, thereby expressing a level of mutual respect for their different Faiths.

In other words, respect for religion, has an inherently democratic character and ethos. The act of genuinely respecting one's religious faith is a signaling of trust and even reconciliation. If person A shows an honest respect towards Person B, who is of a different religious background, then person B may a sense a feeling of friendship, trust, congeniality and reconciliation from Person A. Even if Person A and Person B agree to debate each other's religious and theological differences, they can do so with courtesy and civility, that is to say, with respectability and NOT with rancor, arrogance or contemptibility.

(One may want to thank and respect The Establishment Clause for helping to foster such a conciliatory and respectably religious environment for over 200 consecutive years).

Answer 16

To attempt an answer to your updated question - ie. should you respect as in not talk badly/discredit it I would suggest that you should.

To clarify, I'm not saying that you have to believe that all religions or even any religion is true or correct or whatever, merely that you should show the same respect that you would desire for yourself.

You say that you find religions to be irrational. You have used your rational mind to come to this logical conclusion. However, there are other people who have used this same process and have come to the opposite conclusion. Would you want them to ridicule you/your position and regard you as an idiot for what you consider reasoned logic?

I would suggest that you should respect other religions as to not do so shows an extreme arrogance - that you in your clearly superior logic/intelligence can safely look down on people because you feel you've got it all worked out.

I would say this is precisely the same reason that people who do hold to a religious belief should respect people who do not.

This is all not to say that everyone has to agree - this is the error shown in the Popper quote. Merely, that when you do disagree and debate, you do so with the assumption that your fellow human has thought this through. If they haven't that will be shown by their lack of reason and is their loss.

Answer 17

No. We do not need to respect religions in the sense of accepting their propositions. It is necessary to respect freedom of religion. This allows tolerance of all religions and lack of religion. The problem is with extreme religions which pose a danger to individuals or national security. There is also a problem with religions which advocate illegal activities, such as polygamy. Secularism protects freedom of religion while upholding secular law.