"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart"

H. L. Mencken, known for his sharp wit and skeptical view of social conventions, uses this statement to illustrate the limits of tolerance and respect. The analogy drawn between respecting another person’s religious beliefs and respecting their favorable opinions about their own family is pointed and deliberately irreverent. When someone asserts that his wife is beautiful or his children are especially intelligent, others might recognize these claims as subjective, rooted in personal affection and bias rather than objective truth. Society encourages polite assent to these expressions, understanding them as reflections of love or pride that aren’t open for serious dispute. People do not argue over such statements, nor do they take them as assertions that require empirical proof or public endorsement.

Mencken applies the same logic to religious belief. Outward manifestations of respect for another’s religion are, for him, a social courtesy, an acknowledgment that people have deeply held convictions that bring them meaning or comfort. Yet, this respect does not require genuine intellectual acceptance or agreement. Just as one does not have to actually believe in the peerless beauty of another’s spouse, one is not obliged to see another’s religious convictions as credibly valid or universally true. Politeness and coexistence require recognizing the sincerity and importance of those beliefs to individuals, but not necessarily their veracity.

Underlying the remark is a skepticism regarding absolute truths, particularly in matters as subjective and culturally conditioned as religious faith and personal attachment. It casts a critical eye on the demand for total deference to beliefs simply because they are fervently held. In essence, Mencken values honesty about the limits of mutual understanding in a pluralistic society and suggests that politeness suffices where genuine agreement is impossible or unwarranted. He advocates for a respect that is bounded by reality and the recognition of human subjectivity, not one that pretends to endorse all beliefs as equally true.