Is Every Belief Worthy of Respect?

First Word: Controversy!

Is every person's belief worthy of respect? Should every belief, whatever it may be, be respected? Or can some beliefs be disrespected? What constitutes the dignity of a belief...? I think a meaningless phrase circulates in our culture and language (and perhaps in all the world's languages) which says: every person's belief is worthy of respect. Or: we must respect each other's beliefs, and similar statements. Many also argue that: not every belief is worthy of respect and only correct (!) beliefs are worthy of respect, and so on. And we witness what debates, controversies, enmities, and even horrific wars and massacres have erupted over what people consider respect or disrespect for each other's beliefs. In my opinion, "respect for belief" is among those meaningless and unthought-of phrases that we all repeat without any of us thinking about it. A belief is not worthy of respect; a human being is worthy of respect. Let us not respect the belief; let us respect each other.

1. The Human Being and Belief

As always, to clarify the matter, we must first see what belief means. What is the nature of conviction? To do this, as Rumi says, we must go beyond the name "conviction" and instead, examine its attributes closely so that we may properly recognize its nature:

Pass beyond the name and look at the attributes,     So that the attributes may show you the way to the essence

In my opinion, every belief or conviction or opinion is a proposition, a proposition that reports the existence of a reality (or is assumed to do so). Like when we say ''oppression is bad'', ''precision and commitment in work are good'', ''two plus two equals four'', and ''happiness is the greatest desire in life''. But what is the origin of our beliefs (at least our rational and logical ones)? That is, where have these beliefs or convictions come from? It is clear that we humans, over a period as long as history, have thought, read, conversed, and experienced, and arrived at these propositions. Many of these beliefs have also been discovered or learned by wise human beings and presented to us. But why have we done this, or why have they done this? Why have we sought correct propositions or beliefs that correspond to reality? So that with their help and based on them, we can build a good life, a happy human being, and a healthy society. So these beliefs have not been, and are not, an end for us; rather, they are a means in service of an end. Our end has been (and should be) the happiness, peace, and flourishing of people. And the means of realizing this end has been the discovery of the truths and realities of the universe. Now, the outcome of this effort, this experience, and this discovery, consists of beliefs and, to be more precise, the various propositions we have arrived at, whether ethical, scientific, philosophical, religious, or other propositions. So ultimately, the one whom all these means are supposed to serve for comfort, happiness, and growth is the human being.

An instrument has no value in and of itself. The value of an instrument lies in its capacity to lead a person to a goal, and beliefs, whatever they may be, are at most instruments for guiding human beings toward a better life, wiser relationships, and a happier, more flourishing, and wealthier society (and wealth, of course, is not merely material, economic, and industrial wealth, but intellectual, scientific, and cultural riches are also wealth). Not even one of the philosophers, reformers, or conscious, wise thinkers has ever recommended that you take these particular beliefs, cling to them, defend them, or fight over them, striking and killing one another! They have all said: hear these beliefs—that is, these propositions and teachings—know them, and act in accordance with them so that you may have a better and more flourishing life. It is clear, then, that the human being and their flourishing is the goal, while beliefs, or knowledge, or discoveries, are the instrument. Now look and see how, due to a misunderstanding of this very simple matter, what wars have not been waged, what human beings have not been butchered, what horrifying massacres and genocides have not occurred in the world, and what painful cruelties and crimes are still taking place today. A significant portion of history's tragic catastrophes stems from the failure to grasp this simple point: that belief is in the service of preserving the human being, not the human being in the service of preserving belief! It is beliefs that are supposed to serve the human being, not the human being who serves beliefs! That which possesses sanctity, is worthy of respect, and must be safeguarded is the human being, not the belief! This point leads us to the other side of the phrase under discussion.

2. The Void of Respect

The other side of propositions such as "everyone's belief is respectable" or "let us respect beliefs" (and similar propositions) is the concept of "respect." So we must ponder: what is respect, and what does it mean to show respect? We know that the word "respect" (ehteram) signifies observing the boundary, sanctity, and limits of something. (The words "respect" [ehteram], "sanctity" [hormat], "deprived" [mahrum], "sanctuary" [haram], and "inviolable zone" [harim] share the same root. All these words contain the notion of boundary, distance, and limit.) Showing respect means observing the limits and sanctity of another. When we say we must respect another, it means that certain rights and possessions are presumed for the other, which must be observed, and one must not violate them or unjustly deprive them of them. These rights may be human and natural rights, or legal, contractual, or civil rights, but this short discourse is not in a position to address that subject. The matter under discussion here is clarifying the precise and correct meaning of the concept of "respect." A concept that is very familiar to all of us and holds great sensitivity and importance in our relationships, behavior, and psychology, yet for which there is almost no clear definition or explicit agreement on its meaning and referent! The meaning of this void is that a phenomenon exists to which we all attach importance, and we are highly sensitive to its observance or non-observance, its preservation or violation, yet almost none of us truly knows what that phenomenon is! (Of course, such a situation afflicts most of the important and sensitive concepts of our individual and social lives). As we said, showing respect to one another means that around the life, humanity, individuality, and rights of each of us human beings, there exists a boundary or inviolable zone that must be observed and must not be transgressed. Whatever lies within the limits of that inviolable zone and that boundary belongs to that person, is their possession, and is their right. Therefore, one must know both one's own limits and those of others, recognize the rights of another, and not deprive them of them. Just as one must not allow another to transgress our limits and rights.

3. Hollow Sanctities and Real Sufferings

Respecting another person does not mean uttering certain words or phrases when addressing them. The concept of respect or showing deference is not about bowing and straightening up, rising from one’s seat, refraining from stretching out one’s legs, or not interrupting someone. These are verbal and physical gestures that have no value in and of themselves. Performing or not performing these acts and gestures neither grants anyone any human right nor deprives them of any right (though many so-called blind “respects” may only violate our own rights). Recognizing and observing one another’s rights is the cornerstone of the health, well-being, and progress of any society. If the people of a society do not perform any of these outward formalities but are aware of and sensitive to their own and others’ human boundaries and rights, and observe them, that society will become a rose garden. What creates suffering or fosters well-being is the observance or violation of one another’s human rights, such as not lying to another, not shortchanging them in a transaction, not violating others’ peace, not speaking behind someone’s back and damaging their reputation among friends and relatives, if we are offended by someone or deem their behavior wrong, discussing it with them directly and not depriving them of the opportunity to reflect and correct themselves or to defend and explain, honoring our promises and commitments to others and not deceiving them.

I might show you the utmost “respect” with specific words, gestures, and formalities, addressing you as “Sir,” “Esteemed Professor,” “Madam,” “Dear Friend,” “Noble Compatriot,” or “Venerable Neighbor,” yet in practice trample upon your rights. I might deceive you, place no value on your wishes and needs, and exploit you in various ways. In that case, can it be said that I have respected you? Can we be content that, with the prevalence of such behavior, you and I have built a peaceful, progressive, and prosperous society for one another? As it happens, the great predicament of societies like ours is precisely this: that performing specific formalities, gestures, and words, and using bombastic titles in relation to one another, is of utmost importance and sensitivity, yet there is scarcely any trace of real, practical respect for one another’s human, civic, and social rights. This is not surprising; emphasis on the word, sign, and symbols of a thing always has an inverse relationship with the actual presence of that thing. Wherever the reality of something becomes scarce and fades, words, signs, and slogans become more prominent, and wherever the truth of something emerges and spreads, less need is felt for words, symbols, and slogans.

4. Respect for Mathematics!

The gist of the matter is that respecting others is equivalent to observing their rights. And disrespecting others is equivalent to violating their rights. In this sense, it is clear that the phrase “respect for a belief” is a meaningless statement because it means: “observing the rights of a belief”! A belief has no rights; it is the human being who has rights. Beliefs have no inherent value; it is the human being who is valuable. And beliefs, whatever they may be, derive their value from the human being they are meant to serve. Saying that beliefs are respectable or not respectable is like saying that the proposition “The sun rises in the east” is respectable, or the statement “The Earth is round” is respectable, or that “two plus two equals four” must be respected! These propositions have no rights in themselves for the question of observance or violation to arise. They are discoveries and pieces of knowledge whose benefit lies in organizing our lives and serving the well-being and perfection of us humans. What must be respected is the human being. It is the human being who has rights that must be recognized and observed. The statement “two plus two equals four” has no rights; rather, it is a mathematical proposition whose function is to clarify that you, who have so far lent me two tomans on two occasions, are today entitled to four tomans that I must pay, not three tomans and not five tomans. My respect for you means remaining committed to my obligation toward you, recognizing the value of the trust you have placed in me, and honestly paying the four tomans you are owed. Respect for “mathematics” is meaningless, but respect for you—why, that makes perfect sense.

5. Other Meanings

البته کلمه «عقیده»، خیلی اوقات، به معنای «سلیقه» یا «خواست» یا «نظر» هم بکار می رود. مثلا می گوییم در یک خانواده یا در یک مسافرت جمعی یا یک مجموعه کاری همه باید به عقاید هم احترام بگذارند. در اینجا هم منظور آن است که انتخاب کردن مطابق تشخیص خود، یا عمل کردن بر وفق خواست یا نیاز خود، جزو حقوق هر یک از اعضاء یک مجموعه است و همه باید چنین حقی را در رابطه با هم رعایت کنند و یکدیگر را از آن محروم نسازند. البته ممکن است در یک مجموعه، اختلاف عقاید یا تعارض سلیقه ها پیش بیاید که در آن صورت هم باید بدون تجاوز به حقوق یکدیگر، چنین اختلافاتی را به شیوه های معقول و مورد توافق حل کرد. این هم ممکن است که در یک جامعه، کس یا کسانی به تعهدات خویش عمل نکنند یا حدود خود را رعایت نکنند و پا به حریم دیگران بگذارند. بدیهی است که در چنین جایی باز هم باید بر اساس توافقات و تعهدات جمعی، برای حل چنین مشکلاتی اقدام کرد اما در همه این موارد، آنچه روشن است این است که آن که آسایش و حقوق او مد نظر است، انسان ها هستند نه باورها یا عقیده ها! آنچه مهم است این است که در یک جامعه سالم، همه آدم ها باید احساس کنند که قطع نظر از این که عقیده یا باور آنها چیست، خود آنها مورد ارزش و احترام هستند و حقوق انسانی ایشان رعایت می شود چرا که انسان، مهم تر از عقیده است. (به نظرم واضح است که در سراسر این بحث، هیچ نظام اعتقادی یا دیدگاه خاصی در نظر ما نیست بلکه مراد، روشن ساختن معنای دقیق و صحیح جملات یا عبارت هایی است که واژه ها یا مفاهیم «احترام» و «عقیده» در آنها به شکل های مختلفی به کار برود).

۶. نقض غرض

در آخر باید دو نکته را روشن کرد. نخستین مطلب این است که این که می گوییم عبارت «احترام به عقاید»، یک جمله بی معناست یا این که می گوییم: عقاید حرمت ندارند، بلکه انسان ها هستند که حرمت دارند، مفهومش این نیست که باید به اعتقادها یا باورهای دیگران توهین کرد!‌ این هم نیست که اشکالی ندارد که درباره عقاید دیگران با لحن زننده یا کلام تحقیر آمیز صحبت کنیم. چنین کاری خود عین نابخردی است و مصداق نقض غرض است چرا که اولا نشان می دهد که ما هنوز جایگاه انسان و جایگاه عقیده را به درستی درک نکرده ایم و گرنه انسان صاحب گوشت و پوست و احساس و عاطفه ای را به خاطر عقیده که به خودی خود یک گزاره و یک پدیده انتزاعی است، رنج نمی دادیم!‌ ثانیا، آزردن یا غمگین ساختن دیگری به هر دلیل و علتی، نه عملی عقلانی است و نه سازنده. اگر با عقیده یا باور کسی موافق نیستیم، انسانی ترین و موثرترین شیوه آن است که دیدگاه خود را با کمال مهر و حوصله و رعایت عواطف و حساسیت های دیگری با او در میان بگذاریم و اگر توان یا مهارت های لازم برای چنین گفتگو و تبادلی را در خود نمی بینیم، اساسا از این کار خودداری کنیم چرا که انسان نباید به کاری که در ظرفیت های او نیست اقدام کند و دیده ایم که آنان که چنین کرده اند، اقدام و رفتارشان همواره نتیجه های معکوس و حتی مصیبت آفرینی به بار آورده است. آخر این که بدیهی است یکی از حقوق انسانی آدم ها، برخورداری از امنیت و آرامش و ایذاء نشدن و آزار ندیدن است، ولو این رنجش یا آزار، ناشی از اشتباه فکری و شناختی خود فرد باشد.

۷. خفّاش و آفتاب

ممکن است این سوال مطرح شود که خیلی از عقاید ما اشاره به حقایق بزرگ جهان هستی و معارف ژرف معنوی و اخلاقی و حتی الهی دارند. آیا بی احترامی یا بی توجهی یا خوارداشت آنها رفتار عاقلانه یا روایی است؟ درباره مفهوم «احترام»، موضوع تشریح شد، اما بی توجهی به دیدگاه دیگران یا تحقیر و خوارداشت عقاید یا گزاره های مهم، مطلب علیحده ایست. این حقیقتی است که همیشه انسان هایی بوده و هستند که به گزاره های بزرگ و عمیق هستی بی توجهی می ورزند یا تعمدا بر آنها چشم می بندند و آنها را انکار می کنند. اما در این باره، آن که خطا کرده و باید نگران باشد و آن که خسران دیده و رنج خریده است، خود شخص است نه کسانی که آن حقایق را کشف کرده یا گوشزد نموده اند یا آنهایی که به آن حقایق ژرف و بزرگ هستی باور دارند. چنین کسی با انکار حقیقت و فریب خویش به خود ستم روا می دارد نه به آن حقایق یا گزاره ها.

از همه محروم تر خفاش بود        کاو عدو آفتاب فاش بود

نیست خفاشک عدو آفتاب     او عدو خویش آمد در حجاب   (مولوی)

As we have said, humanity's scientific, intellectual, and moral provisions are precious treasures that have been gathered bit by bit, with much suffering and passion, over the long and winding course of history to serve the joy and illumination of human life. These great achievements are possibilities that can lead human beings toward boundless flourishing and greatness. Disregarding these wondrous possibilities amounts to disrespecting oneself. Let us not forget that respect for human beings begins with respecting oneself and honoring one's own rights, and the greatest existential right of every person is growth, perfection, and a life accompanied by flourishing. It is difficult to say that someone who deprives themselves of their most fundamental human rights can, in the precise and profound sense of the word, conceive of respect and value for themselves.

.

---

.

Is Every Belief Worthy of Respect?

An Anatomy of the Concepts of Belief and Respect

Sasan Habibvand

.

---

.