Respecting beliefs

In several of our discussions concerning dogma and religion in general, we have heard one phrase in particular thrown around rather liberally. This saying reflects the notion that "in the face of disagreement we should all still respect each other's beliefs." The question must be asked, what does this familiar phrase actually mean, and in regard to this universal respect, how far does it extend? Let's first look at the meaning of the word respect. Respect can be defined as esteem or admiration for a particular person or thing. Working with this definition, the above phrase compels us to admire all belief systems including which ever one we happen to be disagreeing with at that moment. If this is the case then our present disagreement is clearly at odds with this supposed admiration; as a general principle of reality we don't usually admire that with which we disagree. For example, outlier beliefs are generally both disagreed with and met with anything but admiration. In fact, they are usually quelled by those who hold beliefs which are generally considered to be normal. An example of this would be the beliefs a schizophrenic. We use the term belief, here, for the sake of argument; in reality, these beliefs are generally classified as delusions. The discrepency between these terms illustrates our point: while the schizophrenic himself truly believes in a particular vision or occurence, the outside majority which considers itself and its beliefs "normal," fails to respect the beliefs of said individual. Rather, they relegate his personal belief to the realm of fiction. Still working with the above definition of respect, it is possible that we are asked not to admire the content of one's belief so much as their ability to hold said belief. Referring back to our example of the schizophrenic once more, not only does modern society fail to admire his ability to produce delusions, it also forces him to take medications aimed at preventing the reoccurrence of such beliefs.
There is a second definition of respect which applies to the phrase in question. To show respect for something can also mean showing favor or consideration. This would imply that we should show special consideration for the beliefs of others. Functionally it seems as though those who share this sentiment are defending their right and the right of others to hold, express, and not be forced to defend their beliefs. In essence this acts as an insurance policy: you can express your beliefs as long as I can express mine, and neither are wrong. This may be an inherent right of men, however, human society does not work this way. A simple illustration of this reality would be failing an examination, and then explaining to your teacher that in your heart of hearts, you believed all of your wrong answers to be the correct choice. Based upon the premise of respecting all beliefs, that teacher must respect your incorrect answers as highly as she would the correct choices. Further, she is barred from asking for an explanation as to why you chose those particular answers, and from trying to demonstrate to you your fallacy. Although this may excite certain students, it should be clear that such a teaching policy is flawed. A more pertinant analogy goes as follows: let's say you have a sustained a serious laceration that according to all modern medical practice would require sutures. Imagine your ER physician believes that prayer, rather than sutures, are the cure for your wound. Would you respect this belief? Would you hold your tongue rather than challenge his decision? Would you even respect the man who dared express it? The point is this, human societies do not respect any and all beliefs; they establish both what is normal and what is correct and hold their members accountable to believe in reality. Yes, we do have the right to formulate and express our own unique beliefs. However, that does not inherently make them true, nor does it protect them from outside scrutiny. Truthfully, schizophrenic delusions do not reflect reality, certain answers to questions are in fact erroneous, and open wounds require evidence based medical care, and it is okay to say so. We realize that it seems politically correct to respect the views of others, and in a way it is as though we are trying to spare the feelings of those we disagree with. However, the above examples point out a dichotomy between what we do and what we say.