Dayton in Oslo sent me this interesting email (I cut out the sycophantic niceties for the sake of brevity)

I wanted to inquire about your opinions regarding the issue of respect in relation to other peoples’ religious or spiritual beliefs. I believe Jacob made it clear in episode 75 that he’d confront someone about their beliefs if he felt they were wrong. (This was, however, regarding a person who Jacob would enter into a relationship with.) But do you differentiate between a lack of respect for the person who has a belief in such and such or a lack of respect for the belief system? The latter train of thought would enable you to maintain respect for the individual…or could it? I’m not entirely confident that one could maintain respect for the individual if one felt their belief system, that they used to raise their children, give meaning to their actions and understand their place in the universe, was completely and utterly full of crap.

Richard Dawkins’ TED video on militant atheism sounded the gong to mobilize atheists (and other non-believers) to come out of the closet and toss out the respect for religion that has been indoctrinated into society…yet, how can this movement really gain momentum if the issue of respect is not addressed? If respect for the individual who promotes a belief system and the respect for the belief system itself are under attack, I don’t see militant atheism getting very far at all.

That’s a pretty awesome question, Dayton, which is why I wanted to answer it on the blog rather than a simple email. As a kind of “evangelizing” atheist (the irony here isn’t lost on me), I’m often accused of not giving people their proper dues, and that accusation also usually implies as much as you can dislike someone’s opinion, you still have to maintain some semblance of respect for them. The general consensus is if you don’t at least try to put yourself in the shoes of others, and merely debase them for believing in nonsense, you’ll fail to convince them of the truth of your assertion and “harden their hearts”.

But I don’t generally agree with this notion. I don’t have to respect the opinions of absolutely everyone, the same way I don’t have to listen to the medical opinions of people who have no formal training in medicine. If some quack homeopath is insulted when I lambaste him for believing water has memory, and is able to cure symptoms of disease, I shouldn’t have to placate his illogical ideas simply because his feelings might be hurt in the process.

I think there are lots of variation on the tactics and techniques people use to try and convince others of their ideas. Some people take the soft approach, like this guy. The problem I have is the supposed need for people to “respect” various religions is merely a ploy to shield various faiths from criticism and honest inquiry. If I have to respect a religion that seeks to enslave and pacify our natural curiosity about the world, how am I supposed to properly object to it?

I’ll be honest; I’m no diplomat, and I have no intention of becoming one anytime soon; unlike some atheists I know, appeasement has no appeal to me. I recognize the important fact that in the whole recorded history of mankind, my objection to religion has only been possible in relatively few countries, and in a relatively recent time. Had I been born only a few centuries ago even in this “civilized” world, my words and actions would have merited a slow and painful death. There are still countries around the globe that execute apostates and doubters; am I to tread gently to avoid hurting the feelings of their murderers? I don’t take history for granted, and I certainly won’t convince myself the liberty I have to disbelieve in God is immune from attack. If there’s one thing I do know for sure, it’s reason doesn’t always win the day, and it’s not worth sacrificing for the sake of a few bruised egos.

Superfan Kate forwarded me an email she received when attempting to contact the maker of the film Return of Christ. Rather than a simple “hi, thanks for contacting me”, Kate got a long diatribe about this man’s own personal world view. What I found most intriguing is how Josiah has mentally justified his beliefs. Here is the first part of the letter:

My Hope is the first thing that distinguishes me from this world. While far secondary to LOVE, HOPE is just as important, if not more important than FAITH.

Unlike many faiths, my HOPE is full of humility and love, not arrogance and contention. I do not arrogantly proclaim to know that I am right. For all I know, there is no GOD. Never-the-less, I continue to Hope. I believe that my Hope is the same hope that Noah had when he built the ark. The same Hope that Abraham had when he left his country to find the promised land. The same Hope that Moses dreamed of as he journeyed through the desert to find a promised land, and the same hope that Jesus promised to fulfill.

In the end, I believe that all those who ask to be changed shall be changed (physically and spiritually). In an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, the corrupt shall be made incorrupt. Until then, do not let anyone tell you that you have Victory.

Until then, Hope for LOVE. Love is far above anything else. Most religions focus on faith and/or works, but both faith and works are dead without Love. Terrorists are the epitome of undoubting faith. Anything can be justified when you know that you are right… when you know that you are God’s chosen.

The religious leaders of this planet (earth) have changed the meaning of the word “faith” into a adverb that defines how strongly they believe. I say again, there is no virtue in undoubting faith. Biblical Faith is a noun. It is simply your beliefs, and can best be understood in a question like; “What is your faith?” or… “Of what faith are you?”

I will not proclaim that I know that I am going to heaven (or to a new world). I hope that there will be a new world and I hope that I will be a part of it, but I know nothing.

If my faith is wrong, and such a perfect heavenly world does not exist??? If the ways of this “survival of the fittest” planet are the ways of the whole Universe, then I am certainly hopeless.

If I am wrong, and the survival of the fittest way is the way of the the entire Universe, then Satan has won whether he really exists or not (in other words, from my perspective, he has won symbolically even if not literally). In which case, the strong will continue to dominate the weak, and the rich will continue to oppress the poor.

Christ clearly stated that He is not a part of this world. Sadly, as it is written, Satan is the God of this world. A third of the angels of heaven chose to follow Satan’s survival of the fittest ideas, so they were cast down to earth. Satan is not the stereotypical creature that most people perceive him to be. He is righteous in his own eyes. He believes this earth is a beautiful and righteous place.

As you can see, Josiah seems to focus entirely on hope, a feeling he believes is impossible without his specific worldview. Although I can admire his ability to see the destructive power of faith, his inability to see just how irrational and paranoid his own beliefs are is scary to say the least. His conclusions about evolution also sound very misguided. Natural selection is neither good nor evil; though it can sometimes appear that way to us. Yes, nature is often cruel, but it is not a directed process. If you try and combine science with theology, this is the kind of predictable reaction you can expect.

The rest of his letter is the literal interpretation of The Book of Revelation, complete with plagues, famine, death and destruction. This bleak world view makes his whole speech about hope seem utterly pointless, if not a tad bit ironic. For if the prophecies were revealed to him to be false, no doubt he would feel a sense of loss at the idea humanity was not about to embark in a epic and bloody conflict between Satan and Jesus.

Considering how nutty this guy seems to be, I’m all the more intrigued to see his movie now!