About Love

The single millennial battle cry of recent seems to be “every time I get on Facebook, someone else is getting engaged or married!” We say it almost scornfully. I’ve spent a lot of time in recent months making major life decisions, and my brain keeps wandering back to where love fits in. I’ve been utterly preoccupied with the hope of one day finding “the one,” the person who I’ll settle down and have kids with. I’d be lying if I said that didn’t come with its fair share of considering the other side of the coin; I might never find that person.

It does seem that a lot of people my age are rushing to find someone, which is pretty on par with the stereotype that we’re a generation of instant gratification. We like things to happen quickly, and they often do. That’s not to say it’s a bad thing necessarily, but love is a tricky thing. I think that desire for moving things along has given rise to Tinder and things like it. Our youth was dictated by the rise of the Internet and the smart phone; of course it’s infiltrated the most intimate corners of our lives.

I think I’ve been in love a few times. The older I get, the more that I realize the quest for love probably isn’t about finding “the one.” The more I analyze it (which is admittedly a silly thing to do with love), the more I think that falling in love probably has a lot to do with circumstance. We load our dating app profiles with tidbits about ourselves, cheesy pickup lines, and bad puns, but if it isn’t the right place and the right time, it doesn’t matter how much someone suits you. That’s the end of the line.

I used to think I needed to find someone to complete me, someone with whom I couldn’t live without. That’s the stuff of fairytales after all. I don’t think I believe that anymore. Dependency isn’t love. Independent congruency is more like what I want. I don’t want someone who needs me in order to be whole. I want to contribute a new, meaningful part to their whole, and I want them to contribute a piece to mine. That’s not to say there’s no void if they’re gone, but it’s not filling some gap that you’ve had your whole life that could only be filled by that person.

I’ve been caught up for a long time in the practicality of love, often using that as an excuse for why I don’t currently have it. “I live abroad! I’m just kind of doing me right now.” While that’s true, I also miss companionship in that way. I use my isolation and self-interest as an excuse for the real reasons I probably haven’t met anyone. Those reasons I find are probably numerous, but I’ve always lived under the guise that someone should love me for who I am. While that’s also true, I think I’ve let myself get away internally and externally because that’s what I believed. I want to be loved for who I am, but ironically, I think I let who I was get away because I thought that meant I could do whatever I wanted.

So, yes, everyone is getting married and engaged, and it stings a bit. I won’t act like some alternative lifestyle cool dude who just isn’t into love right now. I think everyone who’s single at my age is asking themselves the same question even if they don’t know they are. “Why am I so far behind these people? Why do they have it figured out?” I think all of us should probably take a good look at why we’re single before we blame it on the folks who have it figured out. I know I’ve got a lot of work to do on myself before someone else finds me to be an attractive investment of their heart and their time. I’m not talking about dates and hooking up; I’m talking about that long-term stuff. If I’m emotionally unavailable, crass, letting my appearance go, and being generally non-committal, of-fucking-course I haven’t found someone who’s interested in the long game. I can’t fault anyone for that, and I shouldn’t rain on the parade of the people who are a bit more mature than I am.

I’m constantly trying to improve myself, and it’s a slow process. After years and probably several failed relationships of thinking “you should love me for who I am” meant “you should love me no matter what,” I’m realizing that it’s not that way at all. You have to offer yourself in full, but you have to continue being your best if you really love someone. I’ve done my fair share of taking people for granted, and I probably owe some apologies.

Anyway, I’ve rambled on enough. Someday, I’ll probably find someone with whom I’ll have figured it out. All of those mistakes will have led me to a circumstance where love works. I’m not looking for someone specific, just someone who sparks my heart at the right place at the right time, and I spark hers. If not, I’ve taken the time to realize that that’s on me. It’s not, “what’s wrong with me?” It would be, “you didn’t put in the work, Ryan.” Here’s to putting in the work to be our best selves.

I Don't Know

I've been trying to write this for weeks, and I've been relatively unable to accurately articulate my thoughts, so bear with some scatter brain!

What happens if you mix uranium and helium? Is that even possible? I don't know.

How much weight can the Golden Gate Bridge bear? I don't know.

Are my mind and body separate, or are my personality and disposition merely the chemical reactions going on in my brain? I don't know.

I think all too often in our society, we look down on people who admit not knowing. We sell certainty! "Invest with us, and watch your money grow!" "Act this way, and you'll go to heaven!"

We live in constant fear of not knowing. Whether it's not knowing what the future holds or not knowing when asked a simple question, not having an answer sends us into anxious fits, myself included a lot of the time.

Sometimes, "I don't know" isn't an acceptable answer, and I get that. If you ask the doctor how to listen for a heartbeat, they should be able to tell you. Sometimes though, admitting you don't know something and then working to know the answer is the most noble course of action. The amount of people trying to bullshit their way through life is astounding. It's not embarrassing to not know; it's embarrassing to act like you know with certainty when you really don't.

The more that I critically think about my life, the more I realize just how often I've been guilty of being unable to admit uncertainty and embarrassing myself. It's something I've worked on in the last few years. It's something I really respect in other people. Admitting to being unsure is so much better than messing something up because you thought you were sure. In the office and in my personal life, I've tried to become more comfortable with not knowing, asking for help, or simply taking more time to do the research I need to in order to be certain.

"I preach the gospel of 'I don't know.'" I love that phrase. Relative degrees of certainty are so important in today's world, and being able to distinguish between what you know for sure and what you don't is a valuable skill.

I think it's an important time to rely upon evidence. We talk about fake news, alternative facts, and we calculate the percentage that politicians are truthful in their debates. As I encounter students at work, I waiver between hopelessness and hopefulness as I wonder if they're learning to think critically and analyze the information in front of them then make a decision. If there's not enough evidence, it's okay to not know. I wonder where we'll be in twenty years though if hyper-dependency on parents and inability to use Google without guidance become the norm.

I don't think that's a digression. I think critical thinking, self-sufficiency, and the ability to admit when you don't know something are all intwined. It takes intelligence, work, and practice to admit to not knowing. That sounds silly, but I think as humans, when we don't know something, our instinct is to grasp at straws, to try to put together a satisfactory answer even if it's not the right one. I think we gravitate towards simpler explanations, even if they're incorrect, because it's more comfortable than not knowing.

Sometimes, an explanation begins by conceding lack of an answer. How was the earth formed? I don't know, but there's a lot of relevant theories with evidence and research to back them up. The older and perhaps more cynical I get, the more that complete certainty scares me. Donald Trump is certain all the time, and he rarely gets anything right. I think taking someone's certainty based on their word requires trust and extensive background. As they say, you can't believe everything you hear.

As I said, I'm often guilty of the fear of uncertainty, and sometimes, I bullshit an answer as much as the next guy. I do think it's important to work yourself away from that, though. The world doesn't need certainty right now; it needs healthy and productive skepticism. Ask questions. Do research.

Simple Joys

Somewhat unbelievably, I haven't posted on here since September. Brief summary since then: Rome, Thailand, Rome, work, grad school applications, home for surgery, holidays, and soon back to Rome. Life has had ups and downs over the past few months as life generally does. Nothing too crazy to report.

Though not entirely sure why, I've become a little bit obsessed with asking one specific question of both people I've met over the last few months and also those close to me. The question has received a whole host of interesting answers, all fascinating to me. I've been trying to focus on the question in my own life and find a different answer every day.

The question: What is a simple joy in your life?

I love this question. It's got a lot going on in just a few words that really make people think. First, what is something that brings them joy, but also, to qualify it with the word 'simple' ironically makes it considerably more complicated. Does it mean that the joy is trivial or that it means less? I don't think so. To me, 'simple' means this: something ordinary, perhaps that you take for granted. Something that's part of your everyday life that brings you joy.

I've been asking people this question since my trip to Thailand. Things seemed so much simpler there. I could see joy on people's faces for no apparent reason. It struck me. In today's society, joy always seems to be so complex. We don't think we can have joy in our lives without the perfect partner, the perfect friends, the perfect job. We obsess over perfection, and boy, did I fall into that in 2016. It wasn't until I started to search for joy in the little things that what I considered a relatively poor season of mental health turned into one of the better times in my life during recent memory.

Answers to the question have ranged from "when my daughter crawls into bed and wakes me up in the morning" to "the right song at exactly the right moment." When I first answered the question, my go-to was "morning coffee." There's nothing better than a hot coffee, the kick in the butt from the caffeine, and the people generally surrounding me as I enjoy it. Last night, I laughed about ridiculous nonsense with Pedro, and I thought to myself, "What a joy just being silly is." I spoke at length with Conor on FaceTime yesterday, and beyond the joy of talking to a close friend and catching up, I took simple joy from the fact that FaceTime exists (it's really amazing).

Life is so full of moments where complaining is the easy option. Dwelling on bad things actually takes no effort. It's the natural reaction, I think. All of us fall into that from time to time. 2016 seems to have really weighed on people. A tense election, deaths of prominent people, talk of the ongoing effects of climate change, campus rape stories, fake news, and seemingly one bad bit of information after the next.

If we allow that inundation of negativity to take hold, that becomes us. That becomes our lives, and we don't even realize it. It has become me at times in my life. It becomes me on bad days. I had a dream recently about a flood, and I woke up and thought for hours about this weird analogy for the way we live our lives. For so many of us, life exists in a flood plain. When there's no flood, things are fertile and good, but all it takes is a few days of rain for that flood to come crashing in to wipe us out.

In other words, life is often this crazy rollercoaster of ups and downs, and you're either up or you're down. I think I've been asking the question about simple joys to combat that in my life. I shouldn't have weeks or months of downturn. There's always simple joys around me, and since I've started taking notice, I feel better. Tough days have become less tough, and good days have become richer.

I'm a very, very lucky man when I take the time to reflect on it. So, in 2017, for you and for me, I will continue to ask the question. I hope it makes the pet peeves and the tiny annoyances and the Big Bang-like floods of negative energy feel like less of a burden. All the best to you and yours in the coming year. I've got a lot of change coming over the next year, so I imagine I'll be writing more in an effort to process my thoughts and feelings about it all. Thanks for keeping up with me, and thanks for being a joy in my life!

Unity

This post is going to cover everything from sports to politics, so strap in tightly, folks.

I've been doing a lot of thinking recently about the divisions that divide us as humans. The racial divide is heavy on all of our minds, as African Americans are feeling the effects of oppression in ways I can't even begin to imagine. We have political divisions, highlighted in a vitriolic first presidential debate a few evenings ago. We have divisions as nations, divisions of religious beliefs, divisions of just about everything. It's so incredibly easy to place labels, to make someone else the "other." I'm often guilty of labelling people, too. If someone acts in a way I don't like, I'll label them as incompetent, as stupid, as lazy. That's a personal flaw, but I think the way a lot of people approach broader labelling. One action or even set of actions doesn't define a person, in the same way that the actions of one person or one group, don't necessarily define an entire set of people.

I don't know why, but I think our tendency as humans is to point out flaws. We critique everything. We critique all things from what we ate for lunch to our presidential candidates. I think that evolutionarily it probably comes from a desire to improve; e.g., if your hunting technique can be improved, you improve it because it helps you eat. From that same vein of thinking, we generalize to protect ourselves. We generalize all hungry tigers as dangerous because if you come into contact with a hungry tiger, you've got a good chance of dying. I think sometimes that our brains overplay that rule of thought, and we start to apply it to personal characteristics and demographics instead of understanding how important what we have in common is.

The most important thing us humans have in common is just that: we're all humans. We're capable of love, of change, of hate, fear, and compassion. Every single one of us has a beating heart in our chest and a brain between our ears. That's beautiful. If you're religious, you say it's a God or gods that unites us. If you're not, the beauty is inherent in that in some way we all share the same makeup. We're all skin and bones. We're capable of feeling for one another and committing unbelievable acts of kindness. We all know humans are capable of opposite acts of terror and hatred, but aren't those the outliers?

I was struck in the last few days by the response to the death of Marlins pitcher Jose Fernandez. He was an incredible pitcher, but I saw baseball fans and non-baseball fans all grieving the loss of someone who was just generally a good person. I knew Jose Fernandez only as a pitcher on an opposing team, but that didn't stop my eyes from tearing up when I saw the sadness of his teammates. We as humans have that connection; we see someone else suffering, and our hearts tell us to feel for them and with them. The labels we place on each other are what tell us differently. We train our brains to say, "They're different from me. They don't deserve my compassion." All of the problems in the world are a direct result of forgetting the humanity of those around us.

Something I think is interesting is hearing stories about deep idealogical changes in people. For example, a bigoted man may openly hate homosexuals, only to find out that his son is gay. That story can go two ways: one, he maintains his bigotry and is estranged from his son. Two, he has a change of heart and continues loving his son as he had before, realizing he was wrong about homosexuals in general (way oversimplified, but you get the idea). Another example on a less potentially hateful scale is this: we simply don't understand things until we encounter them. Perhaps, we don't see the big problem with the refugee crisis, but then we meet a refugee and our perspective changes. They're just like us. We're all so similar despite what divides us.

The divisions I tend to make are idealogical in that it bothers me very much when other people have biases, discriminations, or hatred for others. I've noticed a lot of othering in the American political race. If you support Trump, to Hillary supporters you are subhuman, incomprehensible, and the reason for the downfall of modern progress. If you support Hillary, to Trump supporters, you too are subhuman, supporting the devil himself. We take our point-of-view and what we think is best, and we generalize because that's how we're programmed to survive. That's how we see the world improving.

I know what I think politically, but perhaps I take pause because I have family members who support Trump. At first, I just couldn't believe it. I knew they weren't hateful people, but I also knew that they support a hateful man. Previously, I had thought that anyone who supported Trump must themselves be hateful, but I know that to not be true. I've had to dig within me to understand why Trump is appealing to people. I had to focus on the fact that political divisions are a human institution, but they're not part of our humanity. Trump supporters are still human. They're deserving of love. When we let these divides seed too deeply, we see fights at rallys. We see hateful rhetoric and shameful acts.

I was struck by a quote from Anne Frank. "In spite of everything, I still believe people are really good at heart." I think that this is something we must keep in mind. We're all, by nature, good. We learn hate. We learn fear. We learn the labels and the divides. Perhaps, Anne Frank had similar thoughts to me in wondering how Hitler could have risen to power. Was every German hateful? Did every German want the Jews dead? Of course not.

So, I ramble a bit, but my thoughts boil down to a simple idea. Despite our divides, find some common ground. Confront your divides head on. Explore why other people think how they do. Instead of writing them off, explore how their brain works and try to squeeze into their shoes. See what motivates their hearts. Find a way to realize how united we all are despite our differences.

I think rediscovering unity is the key to the worlds' problems. Seeing all people as equal humans can end wars, stop climate change, and inspire change. I wrote a post a few months ago about respecting opinions, and I think my words were too harsh. We needn't necessarily respect hateful opinions, but we should listen, and we should learn. The world succeeds together, and it fails together. World War II doesn't happen with one man. It happens when a whole civilization forgets our common humanity. I hope more than anything that moving forward, humans can remember that we're all human.

Criticism

This one's been brewing in my brain for a few weeks now, and today, there was a catalyst that was finally able to help me put coherent thoughts together. Perhaps some of you read today's news story about Colin Kaepernick. In short, he's a pro football player who sat during the national anthem during a preseason game this week. He explained in the post-game that he didn't feel he could stand up for America right now because something is wrong with it, specifically in regards to racial inequality.

Well, gosh darnit, Colin, good for you. I want to talk for a second about criticism. There tends to be this negative connotation to the word 'criticism,' and I don't think it's a negative word. For me, criticism ultimately means improvement. Does that mean that criticism can't be used to harm or insult others? Of course it doesn't. There's a nice way to go about criticism and a not-so-nice way, just like there is with anything else. However, people are so uncomfortable with hearing that something is wrong with themselves, or with a task they're doing, or even with the country they're from, that criticism has developed a reputation as a dirty word.

Instead of criticism, we say, "Let me offer some advice." Again, not altogether incorrect, but in most instances where someone is offering "advice," they're really offering criticism. The dictionary defines criticism as "the act of expressing disapproval and of noting the problems or faults of a person or thing." If you ask me, noting faults and disapproving of them isn't a bad thing. Instead, it's how you help people, ideas, and places to grow into their best selves.

My dear friend Pedro once told me that I was particular bad at taking criticism. It was kind of funny because I immediately got really defensive (seeing the irony in that?). I try to be more mindful of it now; that's for sure. We always think that we're right and that we know the best way to do things. It's good to be confident to a certain degree, but we shouldn't be so confident as to not realize that we don't always do everything right. I think that one of the biggest roles a friend should play is to straight up tell you when you're wrong. So many of my good friends are willing to do this for me, and I appreciate and respect it.

So, let's wrap back around to Colin Kaepernick. The man sat on the bench during the anthem to offer a criticism, and holy hell, did some people get really angry. I did some brief looking through the Twitter world, and people were accusing him of "hating the country that made him a millionaire,"of being an "idiot," of being "disrespecful," and of a whole host of other things.

The people saying things like this, while offering their own criticisms of the act, are misguided. Colin isn't unAmerican. He isn't a traitor who hates America. I would argue that he cares about America a whole lot if he is willing to criticize it and try to make it better.

When did America become so creepy and cult-like? "Sing the anthem and recite the pledge of allegiance, or you can move back to wherever you came from, you commie!" Do people really not see what the problem with blind faith in anything is? You have to be willing to ask questions, to criticize, and to not be proud of something for it to work. Let me dumb it down a bit.

So, you write a paper for school. It has to be 25 pages long. You write the whole thing, and you turn it in the second you've typed the last word. Do you think it will be any good? Sometimes perhaps! Most writers however, will read their own work over and over again, fixing it, criticizing it, questioning if things are right. For some reason, so many people are unwilling to do that in regards to the place they call home. Why can't we proofread it a bit instead of taking the actions of our country for creed?

I had a discussion with my mom when I was home a few weeks ago, and I offered a lot of criticisms of America, of Trump, of my home. She shot back at me at one point by saying, "Well, I'm sure Italy has its problems, too!" She's darn right! I think people think that because I don't live in the US, I think where I'm living is heaven on earth and that when I criticize the US, it's because things are so much better here. Let me be the first to tell you that in a lot of ways, Italy is a complete shit-show. It doesn't even take close scrutiny to see it. However, for some reason, if I talk about racial inequality or gun control in the States, I often receive a lot of backlash (Kaepernick was pretty clear that he knew the backlash was coming). If I talk about racism in Italy, the mafia, how inefficiently things run, or any other problem here, it generally isn't taken as a hatred for Italy. It's a criticism, and most Italians are thick-skinned enough to take it.

What happened to the thick skin, America? When did we get so awful at taking criticism? When did we decide that pointing out mistakes or faults meant I was a bad friend? I don't think I'm unAmerican at all. I care very deeply about America. I think it has the potential to be a great nation. We used to be a nation of immigrants, and now we have disdain for them. The national identity used to be the melting pot, and we took pride in it. I don't think that's so much the case anymore.

America has always had its problems, and there's always been resistance to change. People like Kaepernick who have a big stage that they can stand on and say, "something isn't right here," should do so. There's a lot in America that isn't right. A hell of a lot of days, I'm not proud to the point of shame for being an American, and that's okay. Humans feel shame when they do stupid stuff, and America is part of my identity, so I feel shame when it does stupid stuff. It's logical.

Learn to take criticism. See it as a way to move forward and not a way to point fingers and debate loyalty.

Identity

Well, perhaps I should be doing more of this than I generally do, but I think it's time I admitted something:

I have made a grave mistake.

I made the mistake of thinking I understood at all who I am. We ask that question all the time of ourselves and others. Who are you? What defines you? My mistake was that I thought I had myself all figured out. If someone asked me who I was, I probably would start with a bunch of different societally imposed attributes: I'm white; I'm 24 years old; I'm straight; I work at a university in Rome. How stupid does all of that sound in the context of asking who I am? We define ourselves in so many ways without being able to really pinpoint who we are and what makes us tick.

Think of other ways we define ourselves. Maybe your religion, or your taste in music, or your political affiliation is what your go-to answer is. Either way, I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that it's all a load of crap.

None of that is who I am. None of that defines my personality, and none of it really has any consequence. Let me use an example: we're on a first date. You ask me, "Who are you?" I respond that I'm a liberal, atheist, laid back, travel addict. I used 5 labels there, and the labels themselves meant very little, but rather, it's what you inferred from them.

So I'm all of those things, yes, but your brain has just made snap judgments about those labels without any true discovery. It's the bias we all carry, and it's more important now to recognize that than I think it ever has been. We know nothing of someone based on their labels, and I've spent years upon years defining myself by my labels. So, how do we really define a person?

I think who you are depends on your values. What you value is what people are trying to manifest when they label you, albeit often falsely. You only learn what a person truly values by getting to know them, and we try to take the shortcut because our brains tell us that's the easy way. "Oh, you're a Republican. Then, you don't value women's rights and you're a religious nut." "Oh, you support Hillary, so you support her support of foreign wars." All of these assumptions might be true, but we pre-judge, and we do it without even thinking about it.

So, back to my original point. I've made a mistake, and that was thinking that I should define myself by what other people tell me I am. There's certain things that I certainly am. Some labels work, I suppose, but that's not to say that they're set in stone and we have to accept them. Instead of my first thought being my demographics when someone asks me who I am, I want my first thought to be: "Me, Ryan Bedell? I'm honest, friendly, caring, compassionate, empathetic." I don't necessarily believe all those things, but I think my identity as a person is that those things are what I value. Those are what I look for in others. That is who I want to be. Does any of the other stuff matter all that much? Yes, yes it does, but it doesn't define me, and we're starting to define ourselves by things that I think really shouldn't define us. Your political affiliation isn't you as a person. Your love of ballet and cheeseburgers isn't who you are; it's what you like.

I think defining myself the wrong way led me to a point of low self-worth early on in life. I'm certainly not the first to acknowledge a job well done on my behalf. I take compliments from others and try to shoot them down and say that it's not true. I have trouble seeing why I could ever be attractive to a woman. I have so often defined myself by shit that doesn't matter, that I doubt myself at every turn. I'm writing this because I want my sense of identity to come from something else, and that is what I value and what I hope to be. I don't hope to be a supporter of my political party. I don't hope to be the world's biggest Avett Brother's fan. Those are my interests. I hope to be kind, to support those around me and those in need, to be honest, to be a good human. I hope to be a person of values, so why don't I let that define me and gather my self-worth from that?

I suppose that's the goal, and I'm working towards it. The ideal and the actuality aren't always the same. I won't always be honest, kind, and compassionate. I'll make mistakes, but I think I'm ready to define myself by the fact that I want to be those things for myself, I value them, and sometimes, I have those characteristics.

I reread that, and it didn't make nearly enough sense, but I'm sticking with it. Have a good one, ya'll.

Respect

So many of the conversations in my life recently have come down to respect. It's an interesting concept. The dictionary gives several different definitions for the verb "to respect":

1. To hold in esteem or honor
2. To show regard or consideration for
3. To refrain from intruding upon or interfering with
4. To relate or have reference to

Here's where I think I stand on respect overall. Every single human on this planet deserves, for the sole reason that they are in fact a human being, to be considered and afforded basic rights and necessities as a human. I think that is a form of respect that is a natural right to every human regardless of any factors. I think that beyond that, the definition of respect and where it is due has gotten skewed recently.

Opinions do not have to be respected. "You have to respect my opinion." No, no I do not. If your opinion is completely idiotic, founded in no evidence or research, or just completely wrong but you insist on holding it anyway, I don't think that it deserves respect. For instance:

"Let's build a wall on the border with Mexico to keep out rapists and thieves and drugs."

That sentence does not deserve respect. It is not an opinion that I have to consider. It is not one founded in evidence (that putting up a wall would do any of those things), and it is racist at it's core. It is not for the betterment of humanity, and it does not deserve respect.

One that would deserve consideration (while I don't know it to be true, but am using as an example):

"Tougher border policies statistically contribute to less drugs entering the country illegally, so I think we should have tougher border policies."

I can have a discussion about that! It's an opinion, and while I have a right to refute it, it's one that can be considered because you thought about it once or twice before you asserted it. Supposedly, you didn't just make it up.

You see, I think respect is a word that has a lot of meanings, as shown above, but that many folks have taken to mean only one thing. I think people bundle up all four of those definitions into one over arching term of respect, and say that everyone deserves it. Certain things deserve to be held in esteem or honor, and some don't. Certain things deserve to be regarded or considered. Certain things deserve to be referenced. Others do not. That respect is different than the one that each human I believe deserves on account of being human.

Here's where we really get into muddy waters. Religion. For some reason, our society has decided that all religions, just by nature of calling themselves religions, deserve a disproportionate amount of respect. "Feel free to have a political discussion for hours and yell at each other, but my religion deserves respect!" I completely disagree. If the church says that gay people shouldn't be able to get married on the basis of scripture, to me that isn't a valid argument. If the church says contraception is prohibited on the basis of scripture (to be clear, that isn't really in scripture, just like the trinity isn't, and the virgin birth is in 2/4 gospels), it's not a valid argument. Just because religion says something doesn't mean it deserves respect. Atheism or agnosticism aren't considered religions (despite producing great people who are deep thinkers and moral beacons), thus, in the eyes of many, those folks don't deserve to have their opinions respected. The two way street is hard to come by sometimes.

Additionally, belief in religion is in fact an opinion, and we require folks to be able to defend most opinions they give nowadays. You like Hillary more than Ben Carson? Why? You like Dominos more than Pizza Hut? Why? But you believe in Islam over Christianity, or Catholicism over Hinduism? We're not allowed to ask why. Religion is religion, and it's a protected opinion in our society for some reason. I don't understand why the question of why you believe what you believe is a taboo question, and why people have trouble answering it. It's arguably the most important opinion to a lot of peoples' hearts, but they can't defend it if asked to.

Opinions don't deserve respect inherently like humans do. They're human-made, and thus subject to error. My friend Sam said today in the office, "If opinions have caused people to be lynched, why do they deserve respect? They threaten lives at a certain point."

"You have to respect my opinion," is not something I will ever ascribe to. I know it puts me in muddy waters with what opinions deserve respect, but I think it's fair to say that if it's defensible with logic, reason, or in general any sort of useful defense, perhaps it deserves to be considered. Is it counter to the betterment of humanity? Is it racist, sexist, meant to divide in any way? Why should I respect it?

I don't believe that any opinion is protected from being questioned on the basis of respect. If you want me to respect it, let me question it, and explain to me why it is deserving of respect. Some opinions can be shot down pretty quickly, like, "I think we should bomb a small country for no reason." I could pick that apart for why it's a bad idea. All opinions don't start on equal playing fields.

Anyway, that's enough of a rant for today. Hope all is well for friends and family worldwide.