Sunday, August 23, 2009

"Respect" - what is it?

How many times have I argued for taking a position of respect in dialogues regarding religion, only to be admonished that being polite to the Christians or trying not to offend Christians is a bad thing to do? It's almost as if my words had passed through some kind of Universal Atheist Translator before it got to the other person's ears. Any counterassertion on my part that I'm not advocating for politeness or appeasement is utterly ignored. This situation is quite bizarre, so I guess I need to look into it further.

I grabbed a definition of respect off of Merriam-Webster's dictionary site (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/respect) just to see how it's being technically defined. I focused on the transitive verb form. Here it is:


1 a: to consider worthy of high regard : esteem b: to refrain from interfering with <please respect their privacy>
2: to have reference to : concern


Definition 1 seems more relevant to this discussion, so I'll stick with it. I can go with definition 1a in the sense that I am talking to a fellow human being (regardless of the belief system) and should hold human beings in high regard so long as they haven't forsaken their humanity. As for holding the person's religious belief in high regard, I would only do that in the sense of acknowledging that such belief works for them.

Definition 1b is interesting. Perhaps this is what fellow atheists are talking about when they express concern over the weakness of showing respect. I am, just as much as anyone else, aware of the attitude that religion is somehow far above any kind of reproach or critical analysis in the public arena, and I don't agree with that position either. What merit I do see in definition 1b should be appreciated by both believers and non: don't interfere with my right, as an individual, to adhere to my worldview, even if it's not the same as yours. Discuss, critique, and disagree if you must, but respect the worldview if that's what the other person is ultimately comfortable with. I continue to be amazed when fellow atheists demand that Christians leave them alone and then turn right around and call for the end of Christianity. I am so not getting this double standard.

I didn't see the word polite or the specific phrase being careful not to give offense to in the Merriam-Webster definition. Certainly these could be found elsewhere, so perhaps I'm just looking at a different dictionary than most of my comrades. But I want to clarify what I know about the giving of offense. If anyone reading this would conduct a small experiment, namely to go out of your way to try not to offend someone else, you'll find that the effort will fail over a sufficiently large amount of time no matter how hard you try. Inadvertent offense, or offense misperceived by someone else, is unavoidable. In such a case it remains for us to explain that such offense was not intentional and offer further clarification of the offending remark. In no way does offense taken to an opposing point of view obligate the opponent to change his or her stance; that's common ground I hold with every other secular person. My point in all of this is simply to stick with the conviction but leave out the name-calling. Such strengthens the argument for acceptance of our worldview, IMHO.

0 comments:

Post a Comment