I reject categorically that any religious doctrine, especially in terms of canonical core teachings, should be treated any differently from political or social doctrine. The inspiration may be different (i.e., even less thought given to basing things on evidence), but there are dangers inherent in any social dogma, stemming from the utterly grotesque base assumption that any such body of thought could remotely approach immutable truth.
(Why the cautious tip-toeing around religion on JREF, of all places, might I ask?)
In the case of faith, I consider calls for 'respect' a parlor trick aimed squarely at skewing debate toward the fanciful and unreal, cloaked in dripping sentimentality about the rights and needs of what are essentially misled and misguided people, without a sensible argument in defense of those ideas, or who are in many cases professional exploiters of credulity for profit.
Sorry, but erroneous statements about matters of fact abound in any religious text. "Respect" is not a word I would reserve for such drivel. Myth can be instructive, but like Santa Claus, is something to be outgrown quickly.
And just as in the case of political thought, there are clear factual differences among religious creeds that squarely place some in the nasty box of rigid totalitarian intolerance and absolutist abrogation of the mere existence of the rights of non-believers, let alone any concession to non-religious criteria of any kind in civil society, as a matter of core canon.
Any faith, or political or social creed that teaches, as a matter of canon and not merely as a result of the twisted practices of the few, that non-adherents have fewer rights, or any less legitimacy, or argues for the elimination of civil law, is a pile of utter nonsense that should be ridiculed whenever possible, and fought strenuously whenever and wherever it becomes aggressive. Any body of thought that would have its followers murder, as a matter of core canon, those who leave or simply deny the faith should be banned outright as totalitarian hate speech fundamentally incompatible with modern society.
If a group would like to hold themselves, among themselves, accountable to 'higher' purposes above and beyond civil law, fine. The minute any statement is made to go beyond that private realm, or any attempt is made to make general matters of public conscience subject to their restricted criteria in any way, or to force dissenting members to remain in the sect, then it's time to oppose that doctrine. One may advocate for many things in use of free speech, but to advocate for the death of others is unequivocally incitement to murder, a crime, and so punishable to the fullest extent of the law, with no concessions to religious sensitivities.
A great deal of the sermons published by those preaching Islam in the UK and in the US, indeed, the world over, contain many such calls, in very very crude terms, based on the canon. Ditto for some nut-job Christian pastors around the world who, imo, cannot read. Time for a wake-up, then reinforcement of laws regarding freedom from religion, including severe punishments for advocating mistreatment of women, non-believers, apostates, or anyone else. This is especially true for sects and faiths having no central authority to approach in order to lessen the extremes, such as Islam, or Protestantism.
I suppose quite a few will throw the islamophobic label my way enthusiastically, but I feel the same for any creed or notion advocating the rule of stupidity and killing in its name, regardless.
All around the borders of Islam today, from north to south Asia, to Europe and across Africa, are wars of religion and attempts to impose Islamic doctrine. Within those borders, wars and acts of terror to ensure compliance and enforce the local brand of purity. To deny that is to live as an ostrich wholly given to either fear or, worse, wishful thinking.
Those who would defend the ridiculous under the guise of tolerance, adhering themselves, wittingly or no, to fixed doctrine based on dubious criteria, do themselves and society a disservice by delaying and obfuscating clarity in debate. Worse, like Chamberlain's policies, they open the door, wide, to a much worse future through such appeasement. Those are the intentions the road to hell is paved with.
Free inquiry, to remain free, cannot advocate its opposite without undue sacrifice and, eventually, self-annihilation.
