Can we demand respect for our own differentness without according respect for ALL differences? nt

[patrice]

[saracat]

1. Yes. Do we "respect" Hate Groups? Or the Rev. Phelps?

Differing "opinions " and contempt for basic human rights are not the same.We also do not respect murderers and butchers. We do not "respect" child molesters or rapists.

[Bucky]

22. Corollary: Do we distinguish between hate groups & those who simply discriminate?

People like Rick Warren are certainly bigots, but are they hate groups? He doesn't advocate violence against gays or abortion-seekers; he only wants the law to discriminate between what these groups want and what they think the law should allow.

He's a hater and a hateful person, but I wouldn't call his church a hate group.

[LaydeeBug]

24. ah...so "simply discriminating" is ok? Barring a group from participation IS hating

Lest we start "reaching out" to the KKK. (and yes it is the very same fucking thing)

[Bucky]

28. Do you want a discussion on this or do you just want to vent your scorn

I'd like to have a discussion, but I insist on being treated with the same respect I've shown you.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Yea I made that point on another thread

"Hate Groups", Fred Phelps, and the KKK are not just bigots they are terrorists. Even if they don't participate in violent crimes themselves they do things to deliberately intimidate groups of people and that is terrorism by definition.

Not that I approve of reaching out to bigots, but there is a difference between reaching out to a bigot and reaching out to a terrorist. Warren is a bigot but it would be hard to make a case that he is a terrorist. Perhaps you could make a case that he sympathizes with terrorists, though.

[MedleyMisty]

2. Depends on what you mean

Because if you mean bigotry as a difference - no, there is no obligation at all to respect bigotry and hatred. The only obligaton to hatred is to stamp it out before it kills us all. It's not a difference. It's something left over from our days as small isolated tribes that cannot coexist with human society as it is now. Adapt or die.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. Can I respect homophobes, racists, woman-haters and so on? No, sorry nt

[patrice]

8. No one's asking anyone to respect anyone who harms others.

I truly do (and have for a VERY long time) wish it was more widely acceptable to call anyone and everyone, in any situation and at any time, PUBLICLY out when they are hurting others.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

35. Warren harms others nt

[BR_Parkway]

4. An interesting quandry actually - but not really that complicated as

it would seem at first glance.

If my difference (or point of view) does not harm someone else, and can stand up to factual analysis, then it should be respected.

If, after you prove that my POV is based on lies and I refuse to stop, then you are under no obligation to continue to respect it.

If my POV is actively or promotes harm to others and I refuse to change it when it's pointed out, then you are under no obligation to continue to respect it.

The KKK has a POV against African Americans and Jewish people that I don't respect for those reasons. Not only do they promote harm towards those groups, but they do so based on lies. I do respect, and would fight for, their right to have their own POV and be allowed in a free society to vocalize it.

This isn't politics as much as it is humanity.

[mondo joe]

5. When the administration starts respecting out racists I'll know it's serious about inclusion. NT

[patrice]

6. I am assuming that Respect does not include anyone/thing that HARMS others.

Perhaps I should have made that more clear. Respect is not accorded to things that hurt others.

[mondo joe]

7. Like those who equate gays with child molesters?

I agree, no respect for that.

[patrice]

9. Can we agree that we could accept RW's invocation if he would publicly apologize?

I would particularly like to hear him tell us that he is not God.

[mondo joe]

10. That would be a nice start.

[patrice]

12. If he is not God, he could do this. If he can't do it, perhaps it's because he

thinks he is God.

[TankLV]

15. Ain't NEVER gonna happen - so NO FUCKING WAY!!!

and, put in the basket with all his VOLUMES of hateful words against GBLT, the more likely conclusion is that he would be LYING again and PANDERING just to get to keep his speaking engagement...

[rucky]

11. You could, but you still may not get it.

[patrice]

13. True, but it does help with the mushy middle if we

don't appear to be doing the very thing that we're bitching about the other guy. I know!! Appearances, especially when it comes to the mushy middle, sets the bar impossibly low, especially when it is also necessary to speak out against Injustice and HARM! I really don't know what to do about how stupid some people are.

[rucky]

17. I think this may be the "moral relativism" we keep hearing about...

from the far right. They're sure they're right, we're sure we're right.

If the mushy middle had this superior analytical ability they tout, you'd think they could take a stand on clear-cut issues - one way or another. I think they know, but they're either afraid or selfish because they have no dog in this fight.

[rucky]

18. so how do we know we're right?

Because we're applying the same set of standards to all people. Which brings us back to your OP.

[patrice]

19. I am a Moral Relativist and not ashamed of it.

We need to help people to understand Moral Relativism better.

It doesn't mean that there is no Right and Wrong, but rather that which makes something Right or Wrong are the essential conditions inherent to each situation, so what is necessary is responsible honesty about those conditions.

The Reich Wing, and most especially its BLASPHEMING religious running dogs have a ve$ted intere$t in telling people what is "Right" and what is "Wrong". They don't want Responsible moral agents and as long as ANY of us repeat the old coercive Authoritarian patterns in the name of ____________, it's only a question of time until the ascendence of one side or the other results in ANOTHER situation in which people suffer (and I DO very much see this from the perspective of what I know of common practices in Long-Term Care, but it could be ANY people) while others say "I was just following orders."

It's ironic that even the "Christian's" moral teacher, the Lord Jesus Christ, did not claim equality with Right and Wrong in the mind of God. Contrary to his church and state, he accepted personal responsibility for Right action and, in the end, wondered why His Father had forsaken him.

[TankLV]

14. FuckingNO!!!! Bigotry and hatred of certain groups are not simply "differences".

[baby_mouse]

16. Not enough information encoded in the word "difference".

Hence, no solution. Depends on what the "difference" is.

[patrice]

20. So some differences are more deserving than others.

Which ones and what is our basis for making that claim?

[Marrah_G]

21. Do you respect racist leaders who preach hate?

[Bucky]

23. If you don't believe in free speech for those you disapprove of...

(as the old saying goes) then you don't believe in free speech. Of course freedom of expression does not extend to inciting violence... but obviously this can become a HUGE gray area when applied to specific circumstances.

[JerseygirlCT]

26. Free speech is one thing

and I doubt many here would oppose that.

But respect is another. Treating someone with civility is good - even when their views are not worthy of respect. But I do reject the idea that all viewpoints are to be treated with parity.

Some viewpoints are not worthy of respect, period. I don't think it's intolerant in any way to say so. It's the difference between listening and agreeing.

[Marrah_G]

29. I goes way past even respecting another right to a different opinion.

This guy was chosen....picked...invited... to a historic inauguration that was SUPPOSED to be the start of a Unity administration.

[JerseygirlCT]

30. Oh yeah

I get that, and agree.

I'd be all for having Warren come talk to the president, meet with other religious leaders at the WH, whatever. Sitting at a table is one thing.

It's the honoring him with such a position that rankles. It seems to me to give credence to his positions, and they're simply not worthy of it.

[Bucky]

33. But that's changing the subject.

I'm talking about free speech--not the rectitude of giving one particular bigot a platform.

One thing that's gotten real annoying in this debate the last three days is people stuffing words in my mouth. I say we should protest Obama's invitation to an anti-civil-rights leader, and I get accused of being an Obama basher. I say people can be opposed to rescinding the invitation without being homophobes and I get accused of wanting this guy to give the prayer.

If you want to talk about respect, please at least do me the courtesy of arguing against what I say and not what you want me to say.

[Marrah_G]

27. You didn't answer the question

Let me ask it another way.

If there was a white preacher who was deeply involved in a movement to prevent equal rights and remove other rights from black citizens or asian citizens, or any other race of citizens, would you be fine with them being chosen to give a speech at a historical Presidential Inauguration?

Would you expect member of those races to sit quietly back and pretend nothing was wrong or would you be understanding of their loud opposition to that choice.

[Bucky]

31. "Respect" is so vague. It means different things, so my answer is Yes, no, yes, no, maybe

Am I civil to other people? Yes, I try to give everyone respect in that way.

Do I have a positive regard for people who scorn others? No, I don't respect people in that way.

Do I stand up for their right to hold disagreeble positions, even when they wouldn't return the favor to me? Yes, I do respect them that way. Sometimes I even end up arguing against people whose opinions I share and value and standing up for people whose opinions are reprehensible, but constitutionally protected. I call that "being liberal" altho some illiberal-minded people who are left of center say that I'm being a chump or a DINO for standing by these principles.

Do I extend the respect for differing speech to those who use speech to incite violence? No, of course not--that's the definition of hate speech.

But in practical application is the line between inciting violence and simply holding vehement views on sensitive issues a difficult line to draw? Hell yes. Case in point would be Sarah Palin's reckless rhetoric last fall, saying Obama was palling around with terrorists. She didn't call for violence and she didn't incite violence, in the strictest legal sense of the word. But she did inspire some violent people to cross the line.

Now, do I respect Sarah Palin's opinion? No. But I do respect her right to make those reprehensible statements and insinuations.

[Bucky]

34. Let me ask you this... what assumptions are you making about my viewpoints?

I get the impression you think I'm in favor of this Rick Warren guy giving the invocation. Is taht true? I ask this nonconfrontationally, but out of true curiosity: what statement of mine did I write that made you think I was in favor of him speaking at the inauguration in any capacity?

[JerseygirlCT]

25. Well, what kind of differences?

I can strive to treat those with odious viewpoints respectfully, but I reject the idea that their ideas require my respect.

[sundog]

32. respect on whose terms?