Should Some Things NOT Be Respected?

Going off from my previous post on religion and respect...

Should religion even be respected?

What makes it deserving of respect in the first place? That it has lasted for so long (in most cases)? That it concerns the makings of the universe? Maybe what makes it deserving of respect is that it helped launch human civilization by unifying large groups of people under the same banner.

In that case, I have some respect for religion. While it can be argued that science would have advanced much faster had religion not interfered, it can also be argued that without some form of organized religion, it would have have taken much longer for human civilizations to begin forming. So yes, I suppose religion in general deserves a modicum of respect for launching human civilization, if nothing more.

However, when most people speak of religion and respect, what they refer to is the respect that their personal beliefs, supposedly, deserve. But why is this? Why do people think that their personal beliefs are inherently deserving of respect?

There are two definitions of respect that I think people commonly mistake for the other. They are:

-noun

1. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability

2. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment

The first refers to the respect you give to someone who has achieved something worthy of respect, such as when an athlete receives a gold medal in the Olympics or when a scientist discovers a world changing theory.

When it comes to respect in terms of the second definition, I agree it should be given to religion because it does exist. You cannot deny the existence of religion no more than you can deny the existence of communism or capitalism. More importantly, I agree that this kind of respect should be given to the right to religion and to no religion. Without this respect for the right to religion/no religion, there would be no separation of church and state, something of which the negative consequences I am sure I do not need to explain.

Using that defintion, yes, religion deserves respect.

However, when speaking of respect with the first definition in mind, I fail to see why religion deserves such respect.

Why do I need to respect your personal beliefs outright? What makes your personal beliefs deserving of my respect?

It is not because your personal beliefs are tied to how you see the universe, and by criticizing (or "attacking" as they like to call it) them you feel hurt. This does not make it deserving of respect, for all it has done is delude you into believing a more romanticized version of reality exists solely for the sake of keeping you within your comfort zone.

It is not because religion kept you from continuing a life of crime, alcoholism, drugs, murder, or whatever else. In this case, religion deserves respect from you for helping you make your life better. So how does it deserve my respect? The way I see it, religion is a crutch, making it so that you don't have to do anything to solve your problems.

So why? Why is religion inherently deserving of my respect?

It isn't. The day I respect someone's personal beliefs is the day I find someone who reached beliefs through logical means, not because they were raised to believe or because those beliefs keep them from committing acts of violence on others. I will also not respect a person's beliefs if they only use those beliefs to keep from having to be momentarily uncomfortable about living in a godless universe.

I repeat, I will only respect your beliefs if you can prove to me that you reached those beliefs through logical reasoning, even if I disagree with that reasoning.

Now, whether or not you wish to continue calling me a jerk or an asshole is your prerogative. I couldn't care less of what you think of me.

WTF Sykes, WTF

I mean there's a difference between religious freedom and passively supporting discrimination.

Anyway, the point of the article is that Judge Diane P. Wood, a judge whose head IS screwed on straight, speaks in favor of Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco in a case against the school by the Christian Legal Society. The CLS is a group funded by HCL which, despite an HCL policy that clearly states that the college would not allow a group that discriminated against members, would not allow homosexuals and nonbelievers to become voting members or to assume leadership positions.

The reason for the title is because of what Judge Diane S. Sykes said in reference to the majority ruling in a similar case at an Illinois law school involving a chapter of the CLS. Sykes said that,

“It would be very difficult for C.L.S. to sincerely and effectively convey a message of disapproval of certain types of conduct if, at the same time, it must accept members who engage in that conduct. C.L.S.’s beliefs about sexual morality are among its defining values; forcing it to accept as members those who engage in or approve of homosexual conduct would cause the group as it currently identifies itself to cease to exist.”

[emphasis mine]

So I guess the survival of a hate group is at the top of the list of bullshit to care about.

Admitting is the First Step

Paraphrased from Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God":

If Stephen Hawking, a man whose entire career is solely based on his black hole theory, can admit to the possibility of his theory being wrong, why can't the Pope?

Respect is Earned

Not given away like a cheap birthday gift.

What makes people think that religion is inherently to be respected? Is it because that's the first step to making sure people don't criticize? Or is it because people don't want to feel uncomfortable about their beliefs, so they make it impossible to question it? For whatever reason, too often do we find people who speak heavily against the public, and even private, critique of religion, so much so that a simple joke will send them over the edge.

I ask because I put up a joke on Facebook, "Physics be damned, of course a desert dweller can walk on water, create fish and bread out of thin air, turn water into wine, and come back from the dead, among other things," and later that night, someone I know (we'll call him "C") commented on it, going on about how I'm a jerk for saying that and that religion shouldn't be ridiculed. Now I'll admit, I have a history of posting jokes and criticism of religion on Facebook. It's not like every single status update or link is about religion, most are just about how I'm feeling or what I'm doing at the moment or random jokes NOT about religion, but there's quite a few of them. Anyway, a friend of mine posted afterwards criticizing me and taking C's side, saying that religion shouldn't be criticized because then we won't see the pros of religion.

I call bullshit on both of them.

I respect people's right to believe whatever they want, because without that right anyone could just come up and force us all to believe the same thing. However, that does not mean I respect what people believe. While most religions have something good to teach us, they are all, for the most part, full of ridiculous stories that they try to pass off as fast (ex. Jesus' alleged miracles). Most of them do not require much thought and could be done away with within 5 minutes of actually thinking about them. Despite that, people still continue to believe in them (for a plethora of reasons, though most tend to fall under laziness or not wanting to be uncomfortable), getting angry when someone dares compare the Biblical stories to fairy tales.

That is why I ridicule them. That is why I don't respect them. How could I respect them, when they give up their reasoning skills in exchange for comfort? How could I not ridicule them, when all they do is profess to knowing the unknowable? If you want me to respect your right to religion, I already do, but if you want me to respect your religion, you'll have to prove to me that it deserves to be respected. Until then, I'll keep doing what I do, you're welcome to join me.

12/25/57

Why is Christmas of 2057 so important? Because on that day I will turn 66.6 years old.

Considering my name is Gabriel (after the Archangel Gabriel, who is also believed (by some) to be the personification of the Holy Spirit), I'm pretty sure this means that I am the Antichrist.

You can start begging me for mercy now.

On Pascal's Wager

If I got it right, Pascal's Wager states that even if there is no proof for the existence of God, one should act as if they do believe in God because if they're wrong, they lose nothing and have the same result as a person who didn't believe in God and was right, but if they're right, then they get to go to Heaven and party with the angels. On the flip side, if you don't believe in God, you run the risk of being wrong and going to Hell to party with the devil.

In other words:

Believe in God, just in case, even if you don't really believe in God, act like you do.

There are two things wrong with this, the first being that people who follow this advice believe they're able to trick God. If God really is as omniscient as his followers claim him to be, wouldn't he know that you're just lying? And wouldn't that make it worse? I'm pretty sure that lying itself is a sin, you'd have to think that lying to GOD HIMSELF is a big no-no. Unless God's just a narcissist (with a violent need for attention and he doesn't care whether you truly believe in him as long as you say nice things about him), he'll just send you to hell along with the other dirty non-believers.

Then there's also the problem of the fact that, if this is true and that all it takes to go into Heaven is pretending to believe it exists without any actual proof, then God is no better than (what G0dItself likes to call) an abusive husband/wife. They don't really care if you love them or not, as long as you act like you do. With a being so, supposedly, omniscient and caring as God, you'd think he'd give you a little bit of a leeway when it comes to believing in him before you die and go to Heaven (or Hell).

By far Pascal's Wager has to be one of the most immature arguments for a belief in God, requiring nothing more than a fear of Hell.

The Veil of Maturity

WARNING: This is an emotional one, filled with teenage angst.

I think ti was about two weeks before Spring Break that I met this girl on MySpace. She was pretty cool, we had a lot of common interests and she was pretty smart. I went out with her (and her cousin & cousin's bf) to watch a movie one weekend and we had fun. Then in the week before Spring Break, one night we stayed up late chatting with webcam and at one point she asked how she could prove that she liked me. I told her to kiss me the next time we saw each other. She said ok, and... I felt happy. I thought it was actually happen.

The day came that we went to the beach with her best friend and her friend who was like a brother to her. Because we didn't get one moment alone together (partly because of her friends, partly because she didn't want to just leave them alone), we didn't get to kiss. I didn't want to be a dick, so I told her not to feel bad, we could just see each otehr again. The only thin was that the next weekend I had to go on an orchestra trip to Tennesse the whole weekend (during which I bought a shirt and necklace made for her).

The next two weekends we couldnt' hang out because she was sick. Then, last week, she told me that she got a boyfriend. (now to the point of this post)

WHAT THE HELL!? She fucking toys with my emotions for WEEKS, making me think that for once I actually had an honest chance at having a deeper relationship with someone, that I would for the first time kiss a girl, and then out of NOWHERE, she gets a boyfriend!?

WHAT THE HELL!? Did I become nothing? Did we already become friends?

The worst part is that I swear to fucking god she doesn't even realize how much she's hurt me!

AH! I should have fucking expected it, I swear, she's only in 10th grade after all. I should have known that no matter how mature she seemed, she's still a fucking kid.

I am SO glad that I won't have to deal with this bullshit for much longer. Never have I been more excited to get out of high school and into college (that coming from the guy who's been waiting since freshman year to get out).

Good Morning Mr. Robato, how was your trip?

When the issue of artificial intelligence comes up, most people tend to focus on the potential threat of robots becoming superior to people and eventually taking over/killing us all. While this is important, people forget about the other issue that A.I. will bring up.

The issue being whether or not those robots with A.I. will be considered alive or not and the effects of this on humans.

For most of us it seems pretty obvious that robots can't be considered alive seeing as they're mechanical and not biological, no matter how smart they are. That being said, if a robot is able to learn and feel emotions, would we still consider it just a machine? If it can develop feelings and relationships, what then? Maybe it isn't alive by medical standards, but if it can think for itself and if you wouldn't otherwise that you were talking to a robot, what difference does it make that its body is made of metal? It wouldn't be human, of course not, but could it not still be a living being? Maybe "living" isn't the appropriate term, but it could still be considered aware.

And if it could be considered aware (of itself, of its surroundings, of other people), what effect would it have on humans? If I could develop a real relationship with my computer, what does that mean for me? If it got to the point where I would feel hurt over the loss of a mechanical friend, as much as I would over a human friend, how would it impact society? Or would it at all? Would it really make a difference whether my friend was born from a human or made in a factory?

Personally, I can't wait to find out.

Huh, the Captain's Log.

Taking a look at the Invisible Pink Unicorn's blog roll, I saw that this blog was on the list.

Thanks for the reminder IPU. I'll start blogging again this afternoon (or right now, if I can find the article).