Why would you want or expect one person to be *happy* about another person's beliefs?

For some people, it's not enough that we respect another person's right to believe as they wish, they want us to respect those beliefs themselves.

For still yet others, respect for the beliefs of others isn't enough. They actually seem to want us, even expect us, to have a warm, fuzzy, joyful feeling about those beliefs and the act of believing, sort of a "Isn't it wonderful they've found something to believe!" reaction.

While I realize that many people find comfort and a sense of purpose in their lives through religious and spiritual beliefs, religion and "spirituality" (in the mystical/supernatural sense) are hardly the only paths to improving one's life. The ends do not justify the means. My consideration for what a person gets out of a belief system is not isolated from consideration of the means by which they get it.

I personally value truth over comforting illusions. I consider religion at best to be a comforting illusion. Where should the source of joy for me be in thinking about someone else giving themselves over to comforting illusions?

One explanation I'd expect from the School of Squishy Epistemology would go something like this: "We all have our own truths! We should rejoice when someone finds Their Truth!"

I'll save a more long-winded explanation for later, if necessary, but let it suffice for now to say that it is my opinion that such thinking requires a very weakened, practically useless definition for the word "truth", one that overlaps far too much with "perspective" and "bias" to be useful.

Any other kind of happiness I can think of deriving from knowing someone else "believes" seems condescending to me, like the kind of happiness one might feel seeing a child having fun with a make-believe game, a sentiment that seems inappropriate to apply to a mature, competent adult.

By the way, none of what I'm saying here has a thing to do with thinking I'm absolutely right, thinking someone else is absolutely wrong, or any other absolutism. Why should the distant theoretical possibility that a fundamentalist Christian or a worshiper of Zeus might turn out to be correct make me any happier that people adopt such belief systems?

else's beliefs? Personally, I support anyone's right to believe whatever they are able to believe. It's a matter of little consequence to me. It is their behavior that I'm concerned about, not their beliefs. If their beliefs make them happy, then I'm happy for them. That I am completely unable to believe in any sort of supernatural claptrap doesn't mean that I don't recognize that others are able to believe it. Their belief doesn't hurt me in any way. Only actions can hurt me.

It's a non issue, really.

I was already contemplating starting this thread when the particular post I have in mind, someone pretty explicitly stating they were happy about another person's beliefs, came along.

to be happy for a friend because s/he's happy.

There's no way to squeeze a feeling of superiority or get a rush of ego-boo out of that.

...and being happy for the given reason for that person's happiness.

Just to use an extreme example (no, I'm not equating all religion with this example!) suppose a friend who had been miserable all of his life suddenly found happiness joining the KKK. I doubt that would sit very well with you.

In fact, if you are like me, that reason for their happiness would likely end your friendship. I'd frankly rather have someone remain miserable than find happiness through the KKK.

I use that extreme example to establish a simple fact: often our happiness (or lack thereof) about another person's happiness can most certainly and reasonably be related to the reason for that other person's happiness.

Given that the reason for a person's happiness has an impact on how we relate to their happiness, there's no reason that this impact is going to have to be a binary "I can't stand it!" vs. "Oh, I'm so happy for them!" reaction. When religion is the reason given for someone's happiness, given my feelings about religion, that is going to temper my feelings about their happiness, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the nature of the religious beliefs they've adopted.

who would find happiness in the KKK.

So how would you feel about a dialogue like this:

John: Mom, I have some good news to share.

Mom: Really, dear? Tell me. I can't wait to hear it.

John: Tom and I are going to get married. He proposed last night, and we've set the date.

Mom: Oh. Oh. I thought--

John: Mom, aren't you happy for us?

Mom: Well, dear, it's just that given my feelings about--about--well, you know, homsexuality, that's going to temper my feelings about your happiness.

John: Can't you at least say "congratulations?"

Mom: It's just that my lack of happiness can most certainly be related to the reason for your happiness. After, all, your idea that you can only love other men is only a delusion--everyone's born heterosexual; it's the default position.

And no, that's not different.

...is merely sidestepping the point of the example. Besides, you could have had a white friend who no longer socialized with you after joining the KKK, but you learn from indirect sources that he's very happy now in the Klan, and then the example would still apply to you anyway.

As for a mother who doesn't approve of homosexuality learning that her son is going to marry another man: No, I would not expect that mother to be happy about it.

I'd fault the mother for that prejudice, I'd hope that, for her son's sake, she could keep her feelings to herself as much as possible, but no... it would seem quite unreasonable to expect the mother to actually feel joy at that news under the circumstances.

The question now is, would you fault yourself for the similar response you've given?

Since religious belief is one of the things that frequently leads to prejudice about sexual orientation, I'd think you'd find that equivalency problematic.

I'm equating prejudices against the two things. (And before you try to tell me that's not valid--I've experienced it personally on both counts and can tell you there's no difference at all on the receiving end.)

...against religions that are themselves prejudiced against homosexuality?

There's a big difference between the way people are born and what they choose to believe. I don't view religious belief very much differently than I view political positions or other matters of philosophy. In all of these cases, I'm certainly against discrimination in housing, employment, education, etc. When it comes to religion and politics, however, there are arguable points to both that can't realistically be swept under the rug as totally and completely unrelated to the character of a person.

No matter how happy a friend seemed about a "wonderful new job" they were telling you about, would it be totally and completely immaterial to the enthusiasm of your reaction if you found out that their new job was working for the Republican party?

Where I do frequently find myself is in opposition not to religions--because no religion that I know of is uniformly homophobic, except maybe Fred Phelps' peculiar beliefs--but to people who give religious reasons for their homophobia. I have also encountered persons of no religion who are homophobic; in fact, one of the most insidious I have ever met is a politically conservative atheist. What the two groups have in common is an unshakable if perhaps partially unconscious commitment to patriarchy. To the extent that a religious or political philosophy upholds male supremacy, it also tends to uphold homophobia.

You say that "there's a big difference between the way people are born and what they choose to believe." (I wonder; does that mean you could choose to be, say, a Methodist? Or a creationist? Just personally, I've never believed the Adam and Eve story and am pretty certain I couldn't "choose" to. In fact, I scandalized a lay teacher in 4th grade by announcing I'd rather be descended from a monkey than a mud pie. Fortunately Mother Superior had a good laugh about it when the teacher sent me to the office.) But--you also say, "When it comes to religion and politics, however, there are arguable points to both that can't realistically be swept under the rug as totally and completely unrelated to the character of a person." So I'm wondering--which is it? There are traits with which one is born. There are traits that can't be separated from a person's character that presumably are not inborn. But both are inseparable from the person's character. If that's so, why should they be addressed differently?

By the way, you've never answered the original question I posed. Do you see the similarity in the hypothetical mother's point of view in regard to sexual orientation and yours in regard to relgion? I gave her your own words, after all, and you seemed to find fault with her position.

...with being religious, so despite any parallel in the words you've created, since the issues are different, my attitude is different toward the different situations.

To put it more bluntly, in case it isn't clear, I have a lot more sympathy for a parent who is less than happy to learn their child has decided to become a priest or a nun or a Republican candidate for President than I do for a parent who is less than happy to learn that their son wants to marry another man. I do not accept these as completely identical or parallel situations. I'm pretty sure that this should answer your question.

While I don't believe people can honestly choose in one sudden leap to believe in a very different viewpoint than the one they currently hold, people are in charge, and responsible once they are adults, for many little decisions that lead to their belief systems: whether they expose themselves to different points of view, whether they challenge their own assumptions and reasoning, whether they are even interested in why they believe what they say they believe or are if they just expect you to respect what they believe even if they haven't put much effort or thought into forming their beliefs.

I could go further, I suppose, in assigning people's beliefs to combinations of factors of upbringing and genetics, all beyond their control, but if I do that for religious beliefs, I'd have to do the same thing for all kinds of beliefs and attitudes and behavior as well. There aren't any really clear lines, when you get right down to it, for where personal responsibility begins and ends on any matter.

And that's all I can say for now, since a friend just dropped by and I have to go.

You don't acknowledge the similarity. Doing so would have challenged your own assumptions and reasoning, after all.

And what are your challenges? Can you spell out those challenges, or do you just expect me to suddenly see "Oh, it really is the same thing!", if that's what you think, with no effort on your part beyond laying out a supposed parallel?

Edit: PS: As for not answering questions, I see you carefully steered clear of answering any of my questions about substituting politics for religious belief.

:wtf:

You are entitled to your misery.

I usually enjoy talking to religious people because they have such a different perspective than I have. Often when I am discussing things with a religious person, if we talk long enough, and get into things deeply enough, it becomes difficult to distinguish what they are seeking from what I am seeking. They call it "god," I call it "knowledge" or the "universe." But our questions are largely the same. Essentially, we are both seeking some kind of understanding of life; and a different perspective helps to enrich my search.

If they find happiness in their search for meaning, then I can certainly feel happy for them.

There are degrees of happiness, differences between "happy" and "happy about", between specific happiness and general happiness.

I can find the subject matter of, say, belief in extraterrestrials fascinating. I even believe that life elsewhere in the universe is very likely. I don't see how or why, however, the fact that I might enjoy a discussion with a person who believes extraterrestrials are sending him golfing tips would translate to me specifically being happy about the fact this person believes extraterrestrials are sending him golfing tips.

She has a strong belief in the doctrine of that church. She's a sweet lady. Her belief helps her cope with the effects that advanced age present her with, and she never has an unkind word for anyone. She's a wonderful human being.

She knows that I'm an atheist. I know she's a Lutheran. We never discuss either subject. It would be irrelevant to our relationship. There are many other things we can talk about, so that's exactly what we do.

I'm glad that she finds value in her beliefs. Why would I not be? Her belief doesn't affect me in any way, and it makes her happy. When my wife is unavailable, I take her to services at her church, walk her in, sit next to her, then take her home when services are over. If she takes communion, I assist her down the aisle. I'm not harmed by that bit of superstition in any way. I do it as a favor to her, because I like her.

Atheism that is actively antagonistic to religious belief in others is stupid. What I believe or do not believe is important to me, and to me only. What others believe has no significance to me. How they behave has significance, of course. My mother in law behaves admirably. I'm glad she's comforted by her beliefs.

Isn't there a bit of "oh, she can't help herself and she needs this" to that attitude? Deciding that she's not capable of deeper thought, so, oh well, it's good she's got this crutch to lean on?

I decide nothing for my mother-in-law. She's perfectly capable of deciding things for herself. I help her do things she can't physically do safely any longer. Her mind is just as good as it ever was. Please don't make assumptions about me or my relationships with others. You'll be wrong almost every time. If you knew my wife's mother, you'd understand that she's not someone you condescend toward.

If you don't think the religion itself makes sense, then aren't you viewing the religion itself as no more than a coping mechanism or a drug?

Being happy that someone has a coping mechanism or a drug would be, I'd think, at least a lesser degree of happiness than knowing the person didn't need that coping mechanism or drug at all.

I think all religions are based on superstition and are poppycock. That is not something I share with my mother in law. It's my opinion, and my opinion needn't be expressed, unless it is somehow pertinent. She believes something that I don't. That is a single point of data, and it's irrelevant to my relationship with her.

I have many friends who have religious beliefs. Some of them are aware that I'm an atheist. Some may not be. Unless the subject comes up, it's not part of the relationship I have with any individual. If it comes up, or if I am asked, I simple say that I'm an atheist. Generally, that's the extent of the conversation.

On the other hand, I have friends with whom I share lively discussion about religion. With them, I'll argue my position and refute theirs and they'll do the same thing. We don't hate each other. We just disagree.

But, that's not my relationship with my mother-in-law. She's my wife's mother, and she's a very nice person, just like my wife is. We get along very well. We don't discuss religious issues at all. They are simply irrelevant to our relationship. I wish her to be happy, and would not do anything that would make her unhappy. So, I don't argue about religion with her in any way. There would be no point to it and we get along famously without that discussion.

What's it to me if she believes something I don't? It changes nothing. It affects me not at all, other than occasionally having to sit through a church service, but I've done that many times before. I go to weddings, too, in churches. I present my congratulations and good wishes to the couple without any reference to the religious service that joined them in marriage. It's nothing to me, but may have some significance to them.

Again, what someone other than myself believes is of no importance to me. Only that person's behavior is important to me.

I have no idea why you are arguing this point with me. You will believe as you wish, and so will I. Again, your beliefs are irrelevant to mine.

If you think that, then it follows logically, whether you dwell on it or don't, whether you keep talk of religion out of your relationship or don't, whether you respect your mother in law for many other reasons and think she's a great person or you don't, that your mother in law believes in poppycock.

Despite all of your disclaimers and dismissals of importance and claims of not caring, then, whether it's true or not, it seems very peculiar to me to think you'd be actively happy specifically about the fact that your mother in law believes in poppycock.

As with many other things, it's irrelevant to me. I didn't have children. It's a personal decision, based on my beliefs about overpopulation. My brother and sister have children, and their children have children now. I'm happy for all of them, because they're happy to have those families. I made a choice, based on my own beliefs. They made a different choice. Now, my choice is to stop discussing this with you. Have a nice day, won't you?

So I guess you'll have to forgive me for not figuring out all of the boundaries of your profound indifference since my own lack of indifference seemed to make a difference to you.

This devout United Methodist says Thank You very much.

...of what I posted.

n/t.

Pity some others decided to dump on you for their own interpretation of what you said.

as an adult, I just willy-nilly "became" pagan and that for some reason, has never "heard the word". I've sat through many a testimonial, at work mind you, and after they just knew they've reached and brought another soul to jaysus, I tell them, I am happy for you that you have found your spiritual path and leave it at that. They stunned that I would be cordial to listen to them and their troubles. Plus, I am sincere, if what they perceive to be the truth and it makes them happy, who am I to take that away from them?

You could be either happy or unhappy about whether or not someone believes in "jaysus" (your spelling, which is hard not to perceive as carrying a bit of a mocking tone) and neither option would take or give anything from that believer.

As for sincerity, I'm not quite getting whether it's your sincerity about being happy about someone else's beliefs that we talking about, or if you're trying to make some point that someone's sincerity of belief is somehow related to how happy or not you might be for that person's belief.

you do believe in torturing suspects

And I don't believe in the torturing of suspects. If I did, however, I don't suspect that if I further told you that the thought of torturing suspects made me happy, that you'd be happy for my happiness.

trying to fill inside straights.

are not too happy about other people's beliefs. For example, Christians vs Muslims.