People, what follows is an honest question, so don't chastise me for it.

Why do religions deserve respect? people holding religious beliefs (as people) I can understand, but why do religions deserve respect?

Isn't respect earned? What in religions makes it worthy of respect?

nferyn:

Why do religions deserve respect? people holding religious beliefs (as people) I can understand, but why do religions deserve respect?
Isn't respect earned? What in religions makes it worthy of respect?

Whether or not you're religious, your worldview defines who you are - and that is where respect comes in, if that inquiry is on a genuine note. The same question could be asked as to why anyone should respect the American Atheists, the Atheist Alliance and several atheistic and skeptic organizations: if it's not worth it at all, it's hypocritical of them to have taken the effort to float a website, some calling for membership applications from the public (same as proselytising), let alone seek to state any claim defining their views. No one's chastising you for your concern, but where does respect come in if it's only something the religious don't deserve?

mlks_baby:

Whether or not you're religious, your worldview defines who you are - and that is where respect comes in, if that inquiry is on a genuine note.

I see, but that would be more respect for the person as a consequence of the actions that define him/her, wouldn't it?

mlks_baby:

The same question could be asked as to why anyone should respect the American Atheists, the Atheist Alliance and several atheistic and skeptic organizations:

I don't think those skeptic organisations deserve respect as such. Through their actions they may merit respect, but nothing more than that.

mlks_baby:

if it's not worth it at all, it's hypocritical of them to have taken the effort to float a website, some calling for membership applications from the public (same as proselytising),

That's not exactly the same. Proselitising is actively trying to convince others of your point of view, even though it's against their will. Running a website is not forcing anyone to visit it, let alone forcing it on others.

mlks_baby:

let alone seek to state any claim defining their views.

I really don't understand this. Any claim should be judged on it's merits. You don't need respect to investigate a claim.

mlks_baby:

No one's chastising you for your concern, but where does respect come in if it's only something the religious don't deserve?

I never said that religious [b]people [/b]don't deserve respect, but if they do, it will be because of the actions that define them. There are many Christians whom I admire for what they do. Right now in Belgium, the Catholic Church, as an organisation, is speaking loudly in favor of the rights of people without residence permits. I concur and repect them for that position. That doesn't mean though that I think Catholicism in itself deserves respect.

Thanks, nferyn.

Now, I stated in the other thread that I've no interest in the least for needless arguments.

When you consider the persecutions of people in various countries, on what basis do the perscutors harrass their victims? Is it on the basis of their being citizens of China or of their religious beliefs? Religious persuasions define who you are to a greater degree than your trying to separate them.

Proselytizing can be done in any of several ways, and as surely, there are several skeptic and atheistic organizations that invite membership applications from the public. It's really a weak excuse for anyone to not see it as the same on the basis of "not forcing anyone" to visit their website or read their articles and persuasions of their worldviews. It is one and the same thing, albeit different methodologies and strategies. Else, when people read about atheistic views, no one should be asking to join any skeptic or atheistic organizations, and it would be a serious default for such organizations to even have solicited such memberships in the first place.

"You don't need respect to investigate a claim" - that is if mindless bigotry makes a suitable alternative attitude and posture? Is that why you sometimes have reacted to people passing comments on your posts or views because nobody needs respect to investigate your claims? Nah, because there's an Indian proverb that says: "When you've cut off the nose of somebody, there's no need giving him a rose to smell." Even if you want to present an alternative view, it's highly impossible for anyone to pay attention if your approach is brash or discourteous.

Any extant worldview and religious persuasion today have suffered some blot in their history as to shape their present identity. So, the Catholic Church may not be applauded by many people today; but what about the others who make a case for "clean hands" Is it atheism, communism, Protestantism, Islam, agnosticism, New Ageism, or philosophy that have impeccable CVs?

You are what you are by what you believe - whether religious or not. As individuals, we deserve respect, and that should be extended to my persuasions, even though you may not understand it. I don't understand the atheistic mindset; but that is no licence for a display of disrespect either to the atheist or to his persuasions, even though I don't have confidence in his position. I hope this makes some sense. Your reactions are many times based on who you are - and that in turn is shaped by what you believe.

Respectfully.

I don't understand the atheistic mindset; but that is no licence for a display of disrespect either to the atheist or to his persuasions, even though I don't have confidence in his position.

It's hard to demonstrate how empty this pious staement is. what exactly is "disrespect"?

What if I tell you that the mere practice of Christianity constitutes disrespect of my own atheistic beliefs?

Disrespect is not merely defined in the narrow way that you seem to be so pedantically worrying over. The mere practice of any religion does not necessarily constitute "disrespect" to a non-religious position, and to just be incensed about it that way is no less as empty as you suppose of others.

The mere practice of any religion does not necessarily constitute "disrespect" to a non-religious position

That is a very strong assertion. Prove it!

You need to understand that 'respect' is very subjective word. If I feel that by holding to a religion that holds that I'm a fool because I don't believe in God you are disrespecting my beliefs, then I have been disrespected.

In a recent thread, I said "the Christian God definitely does not exist" and people felt offended. Whereas it was just an expression of my beliefs. So you see, it's all subjective. What you see as disrespect may not be the same in the other person's eyes. It depends on how you define "disrespect". depends on your feelings, my feelings.

What do you regard as disrespect for Christianity? Were the Muhammad cartoons disrespectful of Islam?

mlks_baby:

Thanks, nferyn.

Now, I stated in the other thread that I've no interest in the least for needless arguments.

When you consider the persecutions of people in various countries, on what basis do the perscutors harrass their victims? Is it on the basis of their being citizens of China or of their religious beliefs? Religious persuasions define who you are to a greater degree than your trying to separate them.

I don't see what you're implying here. What binds many people following the western monothistic religions is their strong ostracism regarding atheists. Now, In belgium, I don't have much of a problem, but when I openly say that I'm an atheist among Nigerians, I am sometimes treated very disrespectfully to say the least, for no good reason at all.

mlks_baby:

Proselytizing can be done in any of several ways, and as surely, there are several skeptic and atheistic organizations that invite membership applications from the public. It's really a weak excuse for anyone to not see it as the same on the basis of "not forcing anyone" to visit their website or read their articles and persuasions of their worldviews. It is one and the same thing, albeit different methodologies and strategies.

No it isn't. When the church bells wake me up sunday morning, I'm not in a happy mood. When Jehova's witnesses come to pay me a visit, even though I repeatedly told them that I am not intrested, when someone asks to pray together, even though they know very well that I'm not a Christian, etc I am bothered against my will. Different methods indeed.

mlks_baby:

Else, when people read about atheistic views, no one should be asking to join any skeptic or atheistic organizations, and it would be a serious default for such organizations to even have solicited such memberships in the first place.

How much active sollicitation springs from atheist organisations? It's quite hard to find such organisations in the first place, as organising atheists (as atheists) is like herding cats. When those organisations are solliciting memberships, they are only reaching out to those that are receptive to their ideas, very different from trying to convert people, even though they made it abundantly clear that they are not interested in conversion.

mlks_baby:

"You don't need respect to investigate a claim" - that is if mindless bigotry makes a suitable alternative attitude and posture?

This is a strawman argument. Where did you find mindless bigotry in anything I wrote? If you found such a thing, please point it out to me, as I see no such thing.

mlks_baby:

Is that why you sometimes have reacted to people passing comments on your posts or views because nobody needs respect to investigate your claims?

Courtesy is enough, respect is not needed. I do react when the replies are ill informed (and when I have the time/energy)

mlks_baby:

Nah, because there's an Indian proverb that says: "When you've cut off the nose of somebody, there's no need giving him a rose to smell." Even if you want to present an alternative view, it's highly impossible for anyone to pay attention if your approach is brash or discourteous.

To some people, the very idea of someone having alternative views is insulting. Difficult not to be brash and discourteous in their eyes without simple keeping your mouth shut.

mlks_baby:

Any extant worldview and religious persuasion today have suffered some blot in their history as to shape their present identity. So, the Catholic Church may not be applauded by many people today; but what about the others who make a case for "clean hands" Is it atheism, communism, Protestantism, Islam, agnosticism, New Ageism, or philosophy that have impeccable CVs?

Atheist is simply the lack of God-belief, it is neither a philosophy, nor a worldview. Many religions have a very bloody history. A simple acknowledgement of that history would do instead of trying to rationalise evil actions as not true to their religion.

mlks_baby:

You are what you are by what you believe - whether religious or not.

I am first and foremost by what I do, not what I believe in. My actions are inspired by my beliefs, but my actions define me.

mlks_baby:

As individuals, we deserve respect,

Fully agree

mlks_baby:
and that should be extended to my persuasions, even though you may not understand it.

Why? I may tolerate them and not actively dislike them, but why should I respect them?

mlks_baby:

I don't understand the atheistic mindset; but that is no licence for a display of disrespect either to the atheist or to his persuasions, even though I don't have confidence in his position.

It's just a lack of god-belief. There are as many mindsets of athests as there are atheists.

mlks_baby:

I hope this makes some sense. Your reactions are many times based on who you are - and that in turn is shaped by what you believe.

Respectfully.

Thanks for your time and effort. I do respect you as a person, but I still don't understand why I should repect religion - no offense inended.

Let me say a little more about the subjectiveness of the word "respect". My dad believes that it is disrespectful for me to say that something he said is not right. Whereas I don't. If he says something that's clearly wrong and i say "no, daddy, that is not true", have I disrespected him? It depends on who you ask, doesn't it?

So, saying "we should respect religions" or even "we should respect individuals" is actually quite meaningless. "Respect animals" to an animal rights activist may mean, "treat them almost like human beings". To others it might mean "say your prayers before eating their meat" and both of them believe they are respecting animals.

Especially when our traditional religion is often labeled as barbaric and uncivilized. Ironic.

@Seun,

I appreciate your views, but notice the trend of this interesting discussion.

What makes you an atheist in the first place? I wonder if you could ever be an atheist without holding to some certain convictions and worldviews, basically that God does not exist (or for some, 'a lack of belief in God' - which is more agnostic than atheistic). Now the point is, could we at least have mutual respect for one another (people) without connecting and extending that respect to what we believe (religious or non-religious)? I see two possible inferences to that premise:

   # nferyn is persuaded that respect is to the persons, but not necessarily to their beliefs (religion?)

   # you and I are persuaded that respect is both for the person and his/her beliefs.

Now, I don't have to come knocking on your door to preach Psa. 14:1 to you ("The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" - that is, considering that is your atheistic leanings. Please calm down for a second and let's think together. You see that as a display of disrespect; but it wouldn't affect other atheists who define their worldview as "a lack of belief in God." Even so, how would it be disrespectful to a non-religious person who does not care so much about the existence of God? The agnostic does not know whether or not God exists, so it just doesn't stir an ire in him/her (I know this firsthand).

Bottomline line is this: you will be offended to read a statement like that in any holy writ, whether the Bible or some other. Why is this? Simply because you are proving to me that you are affected and defined by what you believe! That's the whole point I'm trying to bring out - that, what you are actually is defined by what you believe; and if someone says something about your beliefs, you would react by flying off the handle!

The intesting thing is that, not many atheists today would agree that atheism is a belief (whether religious or not - ask nferyn!). However, if you have some beliefs of sorts, anything that in  your view sounds offensive to what you believe will birth a reaction from you! That is why I'd like us to keep this in perspective: people are largely defined or identified by what they believe; and they react to views that contradict their convictions. This applies in your position; but perhaps not shared by nferyn.

The Mohammed cartoons therefore were surely disrespectful to their beliefs; as surely as the Da Vinci Code and other such works to Christians.

Atheism is a belief that God doesn' exist. That point is not under dispute.

What is under dispute is the proper response when someone says, "what you just did is disrespectful to my religion". Should you apologize because "religions deserve respect" or can just tell them to go to hell?

@nferyn,

Let's not play with words here in order not to run the risk of a narrow perspective. Beyond Beligium, atheistic attitude has not been as courteous as you're supposing towards religious people. 'Respect', 'courtesy', 'cordiality' 'politeness', 'civility', 'affability', etc are all synonymous - so anyone can make their pick from the list (unless your definition of 'respect' goes wide of berth at this level, then I apologise).

Secondly, you don't have to take my reference to 'mindless bigotry' personally; I intended it in a general way, which is what happens when discussions spiral out of focus. I think we're both saying the same things at some level, and I do wish you'd understand my contexts. Respect and courtesy are very strange words in situations where people, for example, in the name of free speech deliberately ridicule your persuasions. I don't believe in Islam; but does that give me the licence to ridicule Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an? What is to be achieved from that?

With the rest, you're free to disagree ever so passionately, but my persuasions have not been weakened thereby in as much as I've seen for myself the things I stated.

@Seun,

Interesting points you raised. Now I wonder how nferyn would react to your assertion that "Atheism is a belief that God doesn' exist." Or, how would you react to his that atheism is not a belief? I would respect either view points, because they're not mine - and only the atheist can define for others what he means by the term.

'Proper response' is partly what we're after - and I'm relieved you've come to my point now. Personally, I wouldn't tell a person "just go to hell" (or something akin to that), and I think that anyone as a Christian responding that way is clearly not acting in a proper way (again, my view). You'd appreciate that my general disposition is an effort to decry such misdirected reactions while seeking to make good sense of a bad situation.

I think a proper response for me would be that when I've been shown to have hurt someone's feelings (now in a religious sense), I would seek to appease by way of apology or extension of an amicable atmosphere. If I can't help it, it would not be a proper response from me to come back with deliberate insolence or vitriols of any kind.

mlks_baby:

@nferyn,

Let's not play with words here in order not to run the risk of a narrow perspective. Beyond Beligium, atheistic attitude has not been as courteous as you're supposing towards religious people. 'Respect', 'courtesy', 'cordiality' 'politeness', 'civility', 'affability', etc are all synonymous - so anyone can make their pick from the list (unless your definition of 'respect' goes wide of berth at this level, then I apologise).

Please do give some examples. There is nothing in atheism as such (as it is not a philosophy or worldview) that would warrant a label such as 'atheist attitude'. The divergence of opinions among atheists is quite big. I would personally describe me as a strongly positivistic, humanist utilitarianist and I'm definitely a minority among atheists. Most of them don't hold an explicit 'atheist' worldview, as atheism is not a possitive assertion, but a negative one.

mlks_baby:

Secondly, you don't have to take my reference to 'mindless bigotry' personally; I intended it in a general way, which is what happens when discussions spiral out of focus. I think we're both saying the same things at some level, and I do wish you'd understand my contexts. Respect and courtesy are very strange words in situations where people, for example, in the name of free speech deliberate ridicule your persuasions. I don't believe in Islam; but does that give me the licence to ridicule Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an? What is to be achieved from that?

There's a difference between ridicule, humour and criticism, although the first two may overlap. It mainly depends on the intent when you're judging some expressions of free speech. I personally found the Danish Muhammad cartoons distasteful, but the reactions to those cartoons were completely over the top. Any call to censorship should be met with a strong and vigorous no.
Questioning the claims in the Bible or the Qur'an is not ridicule, even though that questioning may be diametrically opposed to the central tenets of the religion in question, e.g. questioning the historicity of the Bible is perfectly legitimate and should never be considered ridicule.

mlks_baby:

With the rest, you're free to disagree ever so passionately, but my persuasions have not been weakened thereby in as much as I've seen for myself the things I stated.

In the context of this thread, I'm not really interested in what position is correct, but rather what the reasons are for stating that religion deserves respect. I still have only seen an affirmation of that initial position and not really arguments in favor of the assertion.

Seun:

Atheism is a belief that God doesn' exist. That point is not under dispute.

No it isn't, that's strong, explicit atheism, a subset of atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God(s).
You also have weak atheists, implicit atheists, etc

Seun:

What is under dispute is the proper response when someone says, "what you just did is disrespectful to my religion". Should you apologize because "religions deserve respect" or can just tell them to go to hell?

There are more than two possible answers to that question. Most positions would lie somewhere in between (and an atheist telling somebody to go to hell isn't exactly meaningful)

@ mlks_baby
My reaction would probably be closer to yours than to Seun's, but maybe that's a consequence of living in an environment where I'm not ostracised for my beliefs. I don't know how I would react if I would live in Nigeria.

@nferyn,

In response to your previous:

Most atheists I know have an attitude towards religious people; that's the sense in which I used the clause "atheist attitude". I've recognised the divegence of opinions among atheists in my earlier posts, yes?

"Intents" and 'motives' point pretty much in the direction of what I've been saying all along. There's no problem at all with questioning the historicity of the Bible; but when the motives of such people are disingenuous, we both recognise that quest for information is not the drive behind such enquiries.

But you should carefully reconsider the replies - I've shied away from affirming the correctness of any position. In as much as defining concepts were called for, I've used that only as a means to understand where we were coming from and where we were going. My arguments largely have been towards proffering why religion deserves respect: simply because "people are largely defined or identified by what they believe; and they react to views that contradict their convictions."

. . .And in response to yours just above:

Well, I may agree with you to very great degree that environment affects our feelings, thinking and responses. Before I travelled out of Nigeria, my dad could not openly tell his family that he had become Christian. Now in Europe, he's unabashed nor afraid about it. So there - you have a point.

mlks_baby:

@nferyn,

In response to your previous:

Most atheists I know have an attitude towards religious people; that's the sense in which I used the clause "atheist attitude". I've recognised the divegence of opinions among atheists in my earlier posts, yes?

That attitude probably comes from negative experiences with religious people in the past. An a priori vitriolic attitude is absolutely unnecessary and offensive, but do realise that some 'believers' react very negatively to someone openly claiming to be atheist. It's a double edged sword.

mlks_baby:

"Intents" and 'motives' point pretty much in the direction of what I've been saying all along. There's no problem at all with questioning the historicity of the Bible; but when the motives of such people are disingenuous, we both recognise that quest for information is not the drive behind such enquiries.

I can only speak for myself, but when I do such a thing, it is because I have trouble understanding why intelligent people can hold beliefs that are in clear contradiction with observed and inferred (through scientific investiation) reality.
I just want to understad why people can believe (especially the stricter, literalist variations), as it is totally beyond me.
The many talks I had with my wife didn't make me any wiser, they only left me more confused.

mlks_baby:

But you should carefully reconsider the replies - I've shied away from affirming the correctness of any position. In as much as defining concepts were called for, I've used that only as a means to understand where we were coming from and where we were going. My arguments largely have been towards proffering why religion deserves respect: simply because "people are largely defined or identified by what they believe; and they react to views that contradict their convictions."

Ok, I understand your position, but I don't agree. I actually find it a dangerous attitude, as it closes of certain ideas for investigation (but that would be another thread). Maybe people should be careful in the tone they use in these inquiries, but that's as far as I personally would be willing to go.

mlks_baby:

. . .And in response to yours just above:

Well, I may agree with you to very great degree that environment affects our feelings, thinking and responses. Before I travelled out of Nigeria, my dad could not openly tell his family that he had become Christian. Now in Europe, he's unabashed nor afraid about it. So there - you have a point.

This is sad to hear. I hope everything is well now.

They do not deserve respect. Just because you can get thousands or even billions of people to believe a certain thing does not make it true. If it were something else, you would be asked to provide proof when you make a claim. It is this kind of corruption that has allowed people to come up with all sorts of nonsense, such as witches and wizards. Truly, religion is the most popular form madness.

@Afeni: so you are still sh*t-talking? look at your fellow ahiests for example, they discussed their ish peacefully. yours was the comma there. please learn how to talk.

I am not an atheist. I never said I was.

My view is that is impossible to know whether there is a God based on what information we have avaible. Now, if you know something I do not, please share. However, don't qoute books made by people, because I could write all sorts of things, that still doesn't make it the word of God/Gods.

My Freedom starts were my Nose beginns and that is were your own ends.
That is as a figure of speech for me respect.
If I have an old dirty pair of shoes in my living room that you think look out of place ,(Maybe they belonged to my late mother)Then you may think am mad but it will not be your place to tell me were to keep those shoes because you do not know what my Mother was for me.
If i say no to elders , it will be as in a no but: Not just a plain no.
I do not mind people telling me about their god thats ok but it is disrespectful for them to tell me their god is better than mien.

I cannot go to someones house and tell them my house is nicer than theirs.

I would say religion doesn't deserve respect simply because it's a religion. To be fair, some good things have been achieved because of certain religions. Similarly, however, bad things have also been achieved in the name of these religions. Therefore, one is inclined to respect the good that has been done . However, the good does not make the bad insignificant. You will find many examples of people who use religion and their holy books to justify their ideas and wants, and to oppress others as well.
For example, the crusades, oppression of women, the KKK, and even in Naija, some people might justify polygamy because their book says so, but disregard that their book also say that everyone is created equal and that no one is more important than the other. (I remember a Christian neighbour who once said the Bible never spoke against polygamy,and so he is justified in practicing it even though the same Bible say that a union is between man and woman not one man and many women).
Unfortunately, supposedly "religious" people are notorious for "picking and choosing" words in their holy book to justify their own wants, needs, and ideas something I think does more damage and DISRESPECT to their religion than any atheist or unbeliever ever could.
but I digress.

Overall, I think religions can be tolerated and respected as long as they provide something positive to society--and only respected for those positive aspects--and when they do not, they should, likewise lose respect.

It's not religion that deserve respect, is God and if we respect God, we will respect the religion that comes with it.

Damest09:

It's not religion that deserve respect, is God and if we respect God, we will respect the religion that comes with it.

This is a bit simple, isn't it?
I for one do not believe in God. As a consequence of what you're saying, I should not respect religion.

Nia:

Overall, I think religions can be tolerated and respected as long as they provide something positive to society--and only respected for those positive aspects--and when they do not, they should, likewise lose respect.

This I agree with. I can understand that some people need religion to feel whole and thus subscribe to a certain doctrine. My point is that it is not the religion that deserves respect, but rather the actions of people that act out of a religious conviction.
Whatever drives someone to do good is irrelevant, it's the good deeds that count.

mamaput,
That's exactly how I feel, the freedom of your fist ends where my nose begins. The moment someone enters 'my space' without being invited (and that is physical as well as metal, visual and auditory), that person is tresspassing. That's why I don't like proselitising types that think that they can push their conviction on you whenever it pleases them.

I once attended a funeral of a woman who was an atheist all her life, although most of her family remained Catholic. The family insisted that she'd be burried after a Catholic service, even though that was definitely against the woman's wishes. I found that treatment highly disrespectful of the woman and actually very offensive.

nferyn:

This I agree with. I can understand that some people need religion to feel whole and thus subscribe to a certain doctrine.

Hi nferyn,

You may or may not understand why people need whatever they subscribe to in order to feel whole. If they find purpose in believing something about life and existence that gives them a foundation for wholeness about meaning and purpose in life, there should be no surprises there. Certain people want to adopt the philosophical view that 'you make purpose out of life', but that is only philosophical and has no basis as coming full circle with the realities that cannot be explained away philosophically. Many times, this inability to reconcile the realities we deal with in religious life is informed by the view one takes of religion (especially where they many times express a sentimental disdain thereto).

nferyn:

My point is that it is not the religion that deserves respect, but rather the actions of people that act out of a religious conviction.      Whatever drives someone to do good is irrelevant, it's the good deeds that count

Yes and no. 'Yes' in the sense that people deserve respect out of their positive actions; and 'No' because action and belief are on the same plane. You don't simply attach respect to abstract ideas of action, behaviour, attitudes, etc. and conveniently leave out what motivates their actions. People don't simply act respectably; there's always a basis for their actions - be they religious or non-religious. I pray for the good of others and seek out their welfare - that's part of my life: and that's what my beliefs are as a Christian. I would not do this on a mere 'acting respectably' because I would have no basis for that.

Certain people want to adopt the philosophical view that 'you make purpose out of life', but that is only philosophical and has no basis as coming full circle with the realities that cannot be explained away philosophically.

My feelings are offended by this false statement. My philosophical beliefs have been disrespected. How can you say that the way I live my life every day is impractical? My belief deserves respect. Apologize now!

Hi Seun,

I don't get your meaning as writing it off as a false statement; and it is precisely what I've been trying to state all along - "people are largely defined or identified by what they believe; and they react to views that contradict their convictions."

In accord to that, yes Seun, I apologise and hope that you'll see how this is coming full circle when we talk about the realities of life that cannot be explained away philosophically. For those who are persuaded that the beliefs of people deserve no respect, they should owe you an apology as well, because it applies both ways. If the beliefs of people (religious or non-religious) are to be disrespected, then no one should owe anyone any apology; and then what kind of society would we be living in?

Lastly, nferyn (as one persuaded to be more inclined to atheism) may not share your opinions in some related issues; but I think he should now have a ready answer to his concern from your reaction, otherwise it would be interesting for him to ask you why you feel that your belief deserves respect:

Seun:

My philosophical beliefs have been disrespected. How can you say that the way I live my life every day is impractical? My belief deserves respect.

Thats just it everyone dose what they want and how they want it without thinking of others.
When My >Grandmother died she had left a list of what she wants done and how it should be done.
Her children followed up the list step by step the way she wanted it. Then It was her wish.
Its The same with people that fall sick . The family start doing "I want" never she/ he would have wanted.
Lets forget about the radicals.
Normally The religions mind their biz The times of the witch hunting is over.
Religion can not be compared with the KKK because the KKK not mind their biz .The make other peoples biz to their own.
If i am-in a Religion , i am obliged to abide by the laws.

But i admit that there are many i do not really like and they do not let their people go. I do not want to call any names here.
But a religion that terrorizes its followers that want to step out are no more a religion but a sect

nferyn:

This I agree with. I can understand that some people need religion to feel whole and thus subscribe to a certain doctrine. My point is that it is not the religion that deserves respect, but rather the actions of people that act out of a religious conviction.
Whatever drives someone to do good is irrelevant, it's the good deeds that count.

nferyn, you cannot completely disregard the basis on which people do good. Yes in a perfect world everyone should naturally treat each other well and be decent to all, without the encouragement of religion.
But this is far from reality.

Now on the one hand, you have the underlining reason for why European Christians came to Africa in the first place: To educate "the savages and the godless" in Africa,  all the while exploiting their land and milking resources from Africa for their people back home. Something that obviously warrants disrespect for the religion, and rightly so.

However,  prior to the advent of Christianity in Nigeria, twin babies were thrown into the woods and left to die because they were seen as a curse/ bad omen. With the arrival of Christianity by Christian missionaries, this eventually became non-existent. Without Christianity as the basis, we can't conclude that this action would not have continued, at least for some time. If we assume that the action was caused by Christian beliefs, then we must give it it's proper due, not just the people.

Another positive change that some religion makes in society is that it reduces stress and, again, the loss of lives. What I mean is that when a society changes from polytheistic (which was what Naija was) to monotheistic, they don't have to worry about pleasing many gods, just one, or making many sacrifices, which sometimes include human lives in some cases. (Of course you can also argue that blowing up yourself and other innocent people in the name of Allah doesn't do much justice to this claim), but anyways

But in the context of Naija, assuming monotheistic religions never emerged, people would prolly still be worrying about the proper sacrifices needed for Sango, Obatala, Ogun, Oshun, Yemanja, and et cetera,  (although some still do this)

I think as a people we prefer if something is either one or the other: all good or all bad, (deserving of respect or not deserving of respect) but most things in life are too complex to be so simplistic.

Personally, I believe many religions could use more common sense, tolerance, and less focus on mysticism, as well as encouragement of human beings' capabilities to deal with their own problems rather than "leaving everything to God" or in the case of radical muslims, fighting Allah's battles by "blowing up infidels", treating women like second class citizens, etc.

Eventually we must ask ourselves if the world today would be a better place without religion--all religions-- and that's something I think is debatable and both sides of the argument would have enough proof to back up their claims.