# Are religions sacrosanct?



## maxiogee

From another thread…



			
				Pivra said:
			
		

> Some missinary groups in Thailand are just absolutely rude. They show no respects to neither temples nor mosques. I am not religious at all (almost an athiest) but I "loath" it when they talk on loud speakers in front of temples to teach people to be afraid of "God" and saying that we are all going to tell and handing out bibles and much more. I saw one missionary book, protestant, and it insults, the Buddha, Mohamad (may peace be upon him), Hindu deities, and much more.



And why should they not be rude?
I disagree with "respecting other people's beliefs" if you think those beliefs are wrong. And surely most religions are so certain that their message is the right one that this means that - to the believers of one of these religions - the others *must be* wrong.
In politics beliefs are derided all the time, and whole political systems are mocked, belittled and attacked - sometimes with a view to overthrowing them —> if belief in a way of living this life can be so readily (and internationally) disrespected, why shouldn't belief in a way of getting to a presumed next life?


----------



## diegodbs

> In politics beliefs are derided all the time, and whole political systems are mocked, belittled and attacked - sometimes with a view to overthrowing them —> if belief in a way of living this life can be so readily (and internationally) disrespected, why shouldn't belief in a way of getting to a presumed next life?


 
I would call it survival. If I had lived in 17th century Spain I wouldn't have dared deride Catholicism, if I had lived in Germany during World War II, I wouldn't have dared deride Nazism, or communism in the Soviet Union. Where I live, here and now, I can deride Catholicism but it was not always that easy.


----------



## Sallyb36

They are only sacrosanct to those who believe in them!


----------



## Benjy

hi.

i don't believe in lots of things. however, when something is sacred for someone else, as long as that belief doesn't encroach on my personal freedoms it costs nothing to offer at least token reverence. why tear down something you consider to be irrelevant?

no good ever comes from being rude or insulting. i don't think what goes on in the politcal arena can be directly transposed onto the religious one. unless the two are totally intertwined.

i remember hearing someone talking about "a sense of the sacred".  most things are sacred for people because of some kind of real or perceived sacrifice. believe or don't believe in the bible but respect the sacrifices that people made to get it into the peoples hands, the same goes for a lot of other things...


----------



## emma42

Hello, Benjy. I don't know what you mean by "respect the sacrifices that people made to get it into the peoples hands,..." ?


----------



## coconutpalm

We have a lot of foreign teachers(mainly Americans) in the Foreign Department. Many of them work with an organization whose "aim" is to convert as many as non-Christians into believing in their God.
While I'm ready to admit that most of them are kind-hearted and open-minded to a certain extent, I don't like their idea. We don't believe in God. We don't try to convert YOU into non-Christians. Why do you want to interfere with our lives?
What is holy for you is not necessarily holy for us. Are you trying to save us? Sorry, we have a different idea about the Hell and the Heaven. Or to be more accurate, most of us don't believe there is truly Hell or Heaven!


----------



## Sallyb36

coconut palm that is my main gripe about religious people. They just cannot leave non-religious people in peace, they have to try and "save" us.  I find it really annoying.  They think they are so justified in their rudeness as well.


----------



## french4beth

Benjy said:
			
		

> hi.
> 
> i don't believe in lots of things. however, when something is sacred for someone else, as long as that belief doesn't encroach on my personal freedoms it costs nothing to offer at least token reverence. why tear down something you consider to be irrelevant?
> 
> *no good ever comes from being rude or insulting*. i don't think what goes on in the politcal arena can be directly transposed onto the religious one. unless the two are totally intertwined.
> 
> i remember hearing someone talking about "a sense of the sacred". most things are sacred for people because of some kind of real or perceived sacrifice. believe or don't believe in the bible but respect the sacrifices that people made to get it into the peoples hands, the same goes for a lot of other things...


Thank you, Benjy!  Why can't people agree to disagree, but disagree agreeably?  Why can't people respect each other's right to believe in what they want to believe (as long as no one is harmed)?

And how could anyone imagine that yelling at people and insulting them is in any way spiritual or religious?  Intimidation and fear don't seem to go along with loving your neighbor, divine unity, enlightenment, etc...

From wikipedia.com:


> The English word [religion] clearly derives from the Latin _religio_, "reverence (for the gods)" or "conscientiousness".


I am _conscious_ of the fact that if I am belittling, denigrating, or in any way dishonoring or disrespecting another human being, I am not acting in an enlightened, spiritual manner, and thus am not being the best person I could be.


----------



## Cnaeius

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> We have a lot of foreign teachers(mainly Americans) in the Foreign Department. Many of them work with an organization whose "aim" is to convert as many as non-Christians into believing in their God.
> While I'm ready to admit that most of them are kind-hearted and open-minded to a certain extent, I don't like their idea. We don't believe in God. We don't try to convert YOU into non-Christians. Why do you want to interfere with our lives?
> What is holy for you is not necessarily holy for us. Are you trying to save us? Sorry, we have a different idea about the Hell and the Heaven. Or to be more accurate, most of us don't believe there is truly Hell or Heaven!


 
I would say-  as incidental note and with absolutely no polemic tone   - that it is not simple being Christian in China, sometimes it can be risky. So the matter can be more difficult than one can imagine.
That's all
Ciao


----------



## coconutpalm

Risky? 
Maybe. There was an old lady here last term. She said "Hi, guys, come here, I will open a Western Cultural Selective course for you!" Many of us indeed selected her class. What next? All she talked about was Holy Bible, Holy Bible, Holy Bible, Holy Bible, Holy Bible............ Not a single word about western culture. Is Bible the only componet of Western culture? 
Oh, can I cry out "May God help us!"?
Our universtity didn't renew the contract with her.
She returned to America. Before she left, she said to us:"OH, I really love China!"
She loves China so much that she wants to manipulate her belief on all of us.
No lie, says the Bible. But she lied, in order to convey the spirit of Bible.



If you find my words offending, I'm sorry. I don't want to "teach" you not to believe in God. So, please, don't keep feeding me with your ideas of "holy things".


----------



## emma42

Coconutpalm, I have never seen you be offensive.

This woman should never be a teacher. Her behaviour and mendacity were outrageous. I am sure that many sincere Christians would be horrified at what you have said. And, it deprived you of an opportunity to learn about the Bible, because if it had been _part _of a course on "western culture"(!!!) you would probably have been interested, no?


----------



## coconutpalm

Yes, truly, emma.
Each person that has the least knowledge about the western culture knows that Religion(Bible) is very important to the western world. Actually, I bought a Bible and forced(sorry for using this word, but it's no interesting reading for me at all) myself to read it from time to time. The reason is that I want to know more about the western world, and know more about you, friends far from us yet living on the very same planet.

To return to the subject, I would add that I have been taught to try our best not to offend anybody with different ethical/religious background. However, isn't friendship based on mutual understanding? They may do these things out of sincere friendship, but if they continue their behaviors after we have (repetitively) tell them "Stop!", well, I don't think they are true friends----why don't shut up and listen to your friend just for once?


----------



## cuchuflete

Benjy said it very well.  Coconutpalm is right to feel offended by such behavior.  That sort of disrespect for local culture by visitors is disgustingly arrogant.  That it comes from those who purport to follow a religion that promotes humility --- well that just shows that there are hypocrites who follow their religion in name only.


----------



## emma42

I agree, although I think the woman's behaviour was disgusting, perhaps she was not disgusting herself, so much as brainwashed.


----------



## GenJen54

> She loves China so much that she wants to manipulate her belief on all of us.


 
That's the saddest part about people who follow Evangelical thought. They wholly BELIEVE (or are brainwashed to believe, as Emma pointed out) that it is their mission in life to "save" as many people from apparent damnation as possible. 

Many of these fundamentalists fail to see that other religions are even valid. In cases such as these, righteousness knows no shame.

I live in a very conservative environment. To say I am a fish out of water is a gross understatement. Nonetheless, I rarely see streetside prophets on a regular basis. I've yet to experience any Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses at my doorway (I'm not home during the day, so that could also explain it). 

I tend to experience more what Emma has explained - the individuals who, from time to time, show up at concerts or ballgames wearing sandwich boards declaring "the end is near," or "John 3:16."

What I do see, however, is "prosylization" of a different kind. Here, where "mega-churches" are the norm, people "advertise" their faith (and church affiliation) with bumper stickers, yard signs, t-shirts, etc. We don't need them pushing bibles at us, because they advertise where ever they go. We also have received phone calls in the past with people who want to pray with/for us. They've even gone so far as to leave scripture readings on our answering machine. (I won't say what my husband did in response, it's waaaay off topic, but funny.) 

In many ways, it's a commericialization of religion which I find revolting, and antithetic to religion as a whole.


----------



## maxiogee

Benjy said:
			
		

> no good ever comes from being rude or insulting.





			
				french4beth said:
			
		

> And how could anyone imagine that yelling at people and insulting them is in any way spiritual or religious?



I never mentioned anything about being "rude" or insulting" - I spoke only of not respecting daft beliefs.



			
				french4beth said:
			
		

> I am _conscious_ of the fact that if I am belittling, denigrating, or in any way dishonoring or disrespecting another human being, I am not acting in an enlightened, spiritual manner, and thus am not being the best person I could be.



How would you treat someone who believed that the earth is flat, or is the centre of the universe?
Would you 'tolerate' their beliefs, or would you try to explain the truth to them?


----------



## Pivra

maxiogee said:
			
		

> From another thread…
> 
> And why should they not be rude?
> I disagree with "respecting other people's beliefs" if you think those beliefs are wrong. And surely most religions are so certain that their message is the right one that this means that - to the believers of one of these religions - the others *must be* wrong.
> In politics beliefs are derided all the time, and whole political systems are mocked, belittled and attacked - sometimes with a view to overthrowing them —> if belief in a way of living this life can be so readily (and internationally) disrespected, why shouldn't belief in a way of getting to a presumed next life?


 
But can't we believe in our faiths without having to hurt other people's faiths? Religion is the last thing I want to argue about since there is no way to prove who is right and who is wrong. I can die for my nation but definitely not my faith. Religions are not sacrosanct but it's the believers' feelings that are sacrosanct. Religions only holy because we believe, before Venus turns into just a leg shaver's brand she was as sacred as Jesus or the Buddha, but without believers she is nothing but an armless statue. All nations and religions have their exposition points, their climexes and their falling actions just like novels. Nothing lasts forever not even religions.


----------



## emma42

Whatever my beliefs, I have to extend Voltaire's declaration and say that I respect the right of any individual to believe anything they choose, unless it harms others. I may discuss things with them but I would not insist on imposing on them my "truth". I have done that in the past and it doesn't work.


----------



## french4beth

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I never mentioned anything about being "rude" or insulting" - I spoke only of not respecting daft beliefs.
> *from your original post - *
> 
> 
> 
> And why should they not be rude?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you treat someone who believed that the earth is flat, or is the centre of the universe?
> Would you 'tolerate' their beliefs, or would you try to explain the truth to them?
Click to expand...

_Au contraire, _I'm all for having spirited, intelligent, thought-provoking discussions 9such as here in WR) - however, if I sense that the person doesn't give a whit about what I have to say, I'd rather not waste my energy. _If_ I thought that the person might be receptive, I would love to try & win them over to *my* point of view. 

And unfortunately, I know too many people that think that they _are_ the center of the universe (family members, ex-husband, etc.). I just try & limit contact with them - after all, how can you have a battle of wits with someone who is _unarmed_?  

_I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect 
*-Edward Gibbon* 
​

_


----------



## emma42

I agree French4beth.  That's why I said I would like to discuss, but not "impose" my views.


----------



## GenJen54

> But can't we believe in our faiths without having to hurt other people's faiths?


 
Absolutely, we can.  Whether some *choose* to take this stance is the question.  Faith, to many, is blind.  It should not be questioned, it should not be pondered.  In this way, they feel empowered to push share their views on with others.  

I had the distinct pleasure of trying to convince an evangelical that people who adhere to faiths other than fundamentalist protestantism are not "lost souls in need of saving."  This person insisted that persons of the jewish, muslim, buddhist, hindi and other faiths (and non-faiths) were doomed to hell only because HIS bible/preacher/God "said so."

The question is not whether religions in and of themselves are sacrosanct.  I don't believe they are.  The question is really how individuals choose to apply the teachings of their religions.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Hello French4beth



			
				french4beth said:
			
		

> From wikipedia.com: The English word [religion] clearly derives from the Latin _religio_, "reverence (for the gods)" or "conscientiousness".


 
there can be other origins with other meanings, 'relegare', 'religare', 

see etymonline: 


religion [URL="http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif"]http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif[/URL] c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). 

"The equal toleration of all religions ... is the same thing as atheism." [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=religion&searchmode=none​


----------



## maxiogee

french4beth said:
			
		

> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never mentioned anything about being "rude" or insulting" - I spoke only of not respecting daft beliefs.
> from your original post -
> Quote:
> And why should they not be rude?
Click to expand...


Ooops!
I'm sorry, what I meant was that "I" don't do 'rude' - my apologies.
But yes, - if someone believes that they have the absolute one and only way to "be good", then do they do their cause an injustice if they don't disabuse wrong-thinking people?

*N.B.*
I'm not advocating this, I'm trying to see it from the "true believer's" point of view.



			
				emma said:
			
		

> I have to extend Voltaire's declaration and say that I respect the right of any individual to believe anything they choose, unless it harms others.


And who decides what "harm" is - what if they say their "beliefs" require them to harm others - female genital mutilation, for instance?


----------



## aragorn

It is my opinion that far too many religions are far too rude for their own good and I hope that they continue is such a vein until all their mysteries are revealed
aragorn
i believe in me


----------



## GenJen54

aragorn said:
			
		

> far too many religions are far too rude for their own good and I hope that they continue is such a vein until all their mysteries are revealed


 
In the words of French philosopher Blaise Pascal:
_"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction."_


----------



## Seana

maxiogee said:
			
		

> (...)
> 
> I disagree with "respecting other people's beliefs"
> 
> (...)
> why shouldn't belief in a way of getting to a presumed next life?


 
Here you are it is my reason - because the faith for many people is simply a collection of ethical norms maybe the only one certain thing on the world where nothing is certain. The faith passed trial "by fire and water" for many, many years. So why should that one of the most delicate part of our life be supposed to be subjected to the continuous criticism. Most of people is escaping to these certainties in the worst and most difficult moments their life, it is almost their anchor.


----------



## diegodbs

> The faith passed trial "by fire and water" for many, many years. So why should that one of the most delicate part of our life be supposed to be subjected to the continuous criticism.


 
Because many of those people, imbued with such noble thoughts about love and understanding, have burned people with equally noble thoughts just because they happened to believe in different gods or traditions.
Their religion and the noble thoughts that made them burn their neighbours deserve, at least, a little bit of criticism.


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

Benito Juárez, Mexican president during the 1860s, separated church and state.  One of his most famous saying is:  "El respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz".  He was educated by Jesuit priests, yet he had no qualms when he had to enforce the separation of the (Catholic) church from the state.  Since then, priests could not participate in public gatherings.  They had to dress as civilians, not as priests.  They were able to vote again for the 2000 presidential elections.  
Now, I believe in convincing others through deeds, not badgering people to believe as I do.  If on the course of our acquaintance, they decide to adopt my beliefs, good.


----------



## nushh

maxiogee said:
			
		

> How would you treat someone who believed that the earth is flat, or is the centre of the universe?
> Would you 'tolerate' their beliefs, or would you try to explain the truth to them?


Problem is what some hold as true is based on feelings and faith, which, as respectable as it may be, has nothing to do with mathematical and physical knowledge, based on experiments and prooven facts.

That's why we learn about planets and the Earth's shape in school, just like we need to learn Maths, but rely on family, priests, rabbis, etc. for our spiritual "needs". And that's why it worries people who care for culture to find a kid who won't learn about a scientific theory, who refuses to learn about the Milky Way and other planets or the shape of the Earth or Evolution in favour of feelings, hunches and beliefs.

Still, when an adult comes along and says he'd rather believe the Earth is flat because he saw it in a dream or his priest told him or because the horizon doesn't look curved enough to him - so it must mean there's a flaw in everything he's been told and so it proves the Earth is indeed flat, I might try talking it over once, for the sake of it, but I'll certainly won't impose: it's no use anyway and it's _invasive_, something I'm not willing to take from anyone myself.


----------



## emma42

Absolutely, Nushh.

Tony, re #23 "Who decides what harm is...?" Well, _I_ do, of course.

Right and wrong are subjective terms and , even though, in "civilised" societies there would appear to be a consensus on many questions of right and wrong, the terms are still, to a large extent, subjective.


----------



## cuchuflete

Are religions sacrosanct?

Maybe some of the time, in some regards, they are.

My desk dictionary says that sacrosanct means "regarded as sacred and inviolable".  That's true, I suppose, for the adherents of a religion.  It may not be for those who do not
practice or claim to practice that religion.  Still, most of us, myself included, tend to extend some courtesy towards the religions practiced by others.  It's a simple matter of human respect to show another person that their beliefs are part of their fundamental being.

However, there is more to the definition:  "...may imply undeserved immunity to questioning or attack."  This is said about the ironic use of the word sacrosanct, for non-religious objects.  The implication is that religions should be immune to questioning or attack.  

I've met few sincere and devout religious people who do not, from time to time, question their own religions.   When religious organizations...human inventions...and their members move beyond their own sphere of influence into the political arena, they invite questioning at very least, and often provoke attacks.  

In my country there are supposedly religious movements that try very often and very hard to affect legislation.  They would intrude themselves into schools and bedrooms of all citizens, whether of their own religious beliefs or not.  I need no special justification to courteously question and attack such despicable activities.


----------



## emma42

I could not agree more with Cuchuflete.  The point is that beliefs should be tolerated until they threaten harm or the freedom of others.  Then, they must be challenged.


----------



## Fernando

Mariaguadalupe said:
			
		

> Since then, priests could not participate in public gatherings.  They had to dress as civilians, not as priests.  They were able to vote again for the 2000 presidential elections.



You mean, were they NOT able before?


----------



## Fernando

Of course religions have no inmunity to be attacked. 

Of course, religions have the right to proselitise.

Of course, religions (religious people) have the right to speak in public debates.

Considering that religion is a deep feeling I only ask for respect. Proselitism or attacks to religion must be undertaken on the basis of respect and extreme care for other's opinions.


----------



## ireney

Should we be polite when arguing/discussing about religion? Yes we should. For the same reasons why we should be polite when arguing/discussing about anything, up to and including politics.

I can’t see why it’s ok to speak in a derogatory way about someone’s political beliefs and not for his religious ones. It’s a case of either or as I see it.

For me it’s a case of being polite about both as I mentioned before. I find the notion of insulting another person for what he believes not only impolite but also as having negative results (walls come up FAST and instead of discussion we have two simultaneous monologues).

However here comes the tricky part: I am an atheist. Explaining why I don’t believe means by default demeaning the beliefs of someone. 
I think the same goes for i.e. a Muslim explaining why he doesn’t believe in Christ in any other capacity than as a prophet of Allah or why a Christian doesn’t believe in Allah or why a Jew doesn’t believe that Jesus was a prophet or why a Buddhist or a Hindu thinks all of the above are wrong in their beliefs.

So shouldn't I (or any of the above) explain my/our set of beliefs just because they may be offensive to someone else’s? Well, for me we should no matter what, provided of course that we use polite language and do not offend for the sole purpose of causing offense.


----------



## Benjy

emma42 said:
			
		

> Hello, Benjy. I don't know what you mean by "respect the sacrifices that people made to get it into the peoples hands,..." ?



There are quite a few people who got burnt at the stake for translating or attempting to translate the bible. 

william tyndale is one such.

I find that quite inspiring and depressing at the same time.

I think of the massive cemetaries in france where the slain of WI and WII lie, for me they are sacred because of the sacrifices that filled them.

most religious things are sacred to some for the same kind of reasons. in my opinion at least 



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> I never mentioned anything about being "rude" or insulting" - I spoke only of not respecting daft beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> How would you treat someone who believed that the earth is flat, or is the centre of the universe?
> Would you 'tolerate' their beliefs, or would you try to explain the truth to them?



hum..



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> ...And why should they not be rude?....



as to your question it would totally depend on their being receptive to what I had to say. I would make an attempt, if they said no, I would leave them to it.


----------



## emma42

Yes, Benjy - I did not realise you were referring to bibles, that's all!


----------



## Benjy

emma42 said:
			
		

> Yes, Benjy - I did not realise you were referring to bibles, that's all!



ahh right. oh well


----------



## emma42

Ne t'inquiète pas, mon pote.


----------

