Recently, the big data of the small red book do not know what wind has been pumped, obviously I just brush the color charts, eating podcasts and game tips, hard to insert some contradictory and antagonistic text for me to have religious beliefs and no faith in the crowd. Originally the domestic Christian ethos is difficult to comment, but also always give me a push.
Anyone who knows me well knows that I’m not your typical kind of Christian. Even to some, the label Christian often implies a symbol of all that is pious and superstitious. Yet as I wrote inI’m afraid to meet a Christian.As mentioned in the article, I have mixed, if not negative, feelings about most of the Christian community in this country. I loathe the prejudice that most Christians in the country have against sexual minorities, and I hate the evangelistic behavior of some Christians who border on heresy or “cult”. The fact that Big Data pushes these controversial topics to me over and over again, probably thinking that I have some kind of empathy with Christians, has made me question these concepts of so-called “respect” more and more.
In the Little Red Book post, a woman shared her experience of having an argument with her boyfriend over her faith. Her boyfriend, whom she has known for seven years, comes from a family where the whole family is Christian, while she herself is non-religious. Her boyfriend had been sent to a seminary for further studies since he was a child, a practice that was extremely confusing to her, and she even complained as a result that her boyfriend’s family had made his religious beliefs the whole of his life, neglecting his future career. Although her boyfriend invited her to join his faith, she declined, feeling that the state’s emphasis on Marxism would “constrain” the development of religion in the future. She said, “I respect all faiths, but at the same time, I hope that his faith stops at his generation, and I don’t want to bring it to the next generation.” What’s more, she even said that she is in a stable relationship, but because of her faith, she really can’t see the way forward, and can’t figure out if the relationship will come to an end because of the difference in religious beliefs. Her boyfriend, on the other hand, adhered to his own beliefs and could not accept his girlfriend’s request and explanation.
Perhaps these may seem to be the confusion of some individuals, but what struck me most when I read the post was not so much an understanding of the conflict of beliefs, but rather a strong dislike of her logic of “respecting” beliefs. She claims to “respect all faiths,” but at the same time says, “I hope his faith stops with his generation. That kind of “respect” sounds ridiculous. It’s like someone saying, “I respect you, but I want you to stop being yourself and doing things that make other people feel uncomfortable.” How sincere is this “respect” and how subtly demeaning is it?
If we look at this issue from another angle, we can realize more clearly what this “respect” really means. Suppose a devoutly religious person says, “I respect people who do not have faith, but I hope that in the future people will have faith, not no faith.” Let’s ask, does such a statement sound like respect, or does it sound like a stealthy oppression of other people’s choices? To put it bluntly, the essence of such respect is in fact “tolerance”, a kind of tolerance with discrimination.
This show of “respect” is telling others:You can exist, but you should remain silent.You can have beliefs, but you should not let your beliefs “affect” me. You can be who you are, but please don’t make “my world” uncomfortable in any way. This attitude may sound gentle, but it is a hidden contradiction and self-centered superiority.Her “respect” is actually standing on her own perspective, using her own worldview as a standard to “tolerate” others, which ultimately results in compressing the other person’s beliefs into a “compromised” state. The end result is to reduce the beliefs of the other party to a state of “compromise”.The idea that she wants his faith to continue no longer, and preferably to stop at this generation, is, in the final analysis, nothing more than a deep selfishness, and even a profound disdain for the freedom of faith.
The connotation of freedom of belief is far from being limited to choices at the religious level alone; it involves human cognition, spiritual needs and the construction of a world view. From a philosophical point of view, faith is not only the exclusive domain of religion, but any kind of deep attachment and firm belief in a certain idea or worldview can be understood as a kind of faith.Such beliefs are not necessarily linked to traditional forms of religion; non-religious belief systems, such as Marxism or atheism, can also carry spiritual functions similar to those of religious belief. For example, followers of Marxism regard Marx’s theories as scientific truths revealing the laws of social and historical development, and this belief system is deeply rooted in the knowledge of social processes and historical changes, while atheists firmly believe that the universe and life do not need to rely on any supernatural forces for their existence, which can also be regarded as a kind of faith. Its core does not lie in the denial of the existence of God, but is based on a certain philosophical conviction about the natural world and the way of human existence.
In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant suggests that faith is essentially a “cognitive gesture” that cannot be verified by pure reason, and that it transcends the realm of the empirically verifiable and enters into the human heart’s deepest search for meaning, existence, and ultimate reality. Kant’s philosophy distinguishes between “theoretical reason” and “practical reason,” arguing that theoretical reason cannot adequately prove or disprove the existence of transcendent things such as God, the immortality of the soul, and so on, and that these existences must be assumed as a matter of “practical reason”. Practical Reason”. Faith is seen here as an irrational acceptance of these transcendent realities, which is not arrived at through purely rational reasoning, but is more of an intuitive, emotional, or even volitional identification. Because of this, the role of faith is not to provide rational proof, but to provide support for a sense of meaning and purpose in individual existence.
Whether it is the quest for religious meaning or belief in philosophical truths, none of these forms of beliefs form part of an individual’s worldview and have influenced individual and societal ways of thinking, values, and patterns of behavior throughout the course of human history.It is in this context that freedom of belief is defined, not merely as the freedom to “choose a religious belief”, but as respect for the individual’s spiritual independence and right to choose. In a liberal framework, the core of freedom of belief should be the freedom to “choose” and “express”, i.e., every individual should have the right to choose and freely express his or her own beliefs, be they religious, philosophical or completely atheistic. Everyone should have the right to freely pursue the belief system they find meaningful and to express their understanding of the world, life and existence without infringing on the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
From a broader perspective, freedom of belief is not a special preference for one religion or belief system, but rather equal treatment and respect for all forms of belief. Every belief, whether it is an ancient religious belief, a modern political idea or a philosophical thought, should be regarded as part of an individual’s free expression and spiritual life, and should be given equal attention and protection at the social level, implying that society accommodates different ideas and forms of belief and respects the independence of individuals in the spiritual sphere.
This phenomenon of saying we respect while at the same time invisibly discriminating is not uncommon in our society. I often hear people say, “I respect homosexuals, but I don’t want them to disclose their sexual orientation because it makes me feel uncomfortable.” Do you realize that behind this “respect” lies an invisible layer of prejudice? What appears to be tolerance is in fact the imposition of unequal rules.This kind of rhetoric is mild on the surface, but it puts the reason “I’m not comfortable” on the moral high ground, as if everything should be compromised for the sake of his “comfortable” feelings.Her respect is not equal, but rather a “gift” of tolerance from above.
Such a mode of thinking is not confined to the realm of personal feelings, but has even permeated the social level and become a generalized concept. In recent years, for example, social attitudes towards Christians, Muslims and even other minority religious groups have often been contradictory. On the one hand, the State strongly advocates “freedom of religious belief”, but on the other hand, there is often an invisible attitude of repression, or even contempt or hostility towards religious groups. As we can see on some social media platforms, “I respect Christians, but can you not talk about your religion in public? Don’t make us uncomfortable.” This echoes the woman’s point: behind respect is an underlying set of rules that are not based on equality, but on not bothering yourself and staying comfortable.
What is even more ironic is that this standard of “respect” is often used to justify the so-called “civilization” and “rationality”. The mainstream discourse in our society always encourages people to demonstrate rationality, tolerance and openness in the public sphere, but very often, the so-called rationality and tolerance are nothing more than prejudices hidden under a set of seemingly neutral logic.Those who claim to be “rational” are often the most moderate in suppressing and marginalizing those who do not share their views.We constantly pay lip service to tolerance and respect, but in reality, we invariably create countless unbridgeable gaps and walls.