It is somewhat subjective who is "deserving" of, or has "earned" respect, but it seems imprudent to afford the same respect to all actors. Most people afford an initial default level of respect on the assumption the person is an honest actor / good faith arguer, and adjust up or down from there based on subsequent experience. This seems a reasonable approach, assuming that "deserving" is based on acted-out integrity in lived experience rather than on some kind of snap judgment based on, say, tribal or appearance considerations.
One thing I am certain of, is that religious ideation has been given unearned respect in the marketplace of ideas until very recently (in the context of recorded history), and this has accustomed it to not ever having to evidence or justify its views or even very much to reason concerning them. Blasphemy laws are one big historical expression of this unseemly hegemony. Modern fundamentalist persecution narratives are another.
As a former evangelical I have actual understanding and empathy for where they are coming from but do not respect their claims to moral high ground or of occult knowledge. They are and always have been conscienceless bullshitters, which partly explains their morally reprehensible tolerance for Trump and Trumpism.
One thing I am certain of, is that religious ideation has been given unearned respect in the marketplace of ideas until very recently (in the context of recorded history), and this has accustomed it to not ever having to evidence or justify its views or even very much to reason concerning them. Blasphemy laws are one big historical expression of this unseemly hegemony. Modern fundamentalist persecution narratives are another.
As a former evangelical I have actual understanding and empathy for where they are coming from but do not respect their claims to moral high ground or of occult knowledge. They are and always have been conscienceless bullshitters, which partly explains their morally reprehensible tolerance for Trump and Trumpism.
