Excellent thread, maybe one of the best. Should be set as an example as to how contentious subjects can be debated by rational folks.

It may be a model of reasoned debate, but IMO it misses the mark for respect.

I think that for some people, "respect" means a value judgment based on conditions one has imposed that require some behavior or other from the other person before respect is "granted."

For me, respect is not a "value judgment" but a "value."

I mean that my belief and my long practice is that a human being is worthy of respect because of their humanity. I do not require anything of others in order to respect them-- I require of myself that I respect them, no matter what their outer seeming or actions may be, because it is my long, worldly experience (not merely my more recent religious belief) that beneath the seeming is a human being not so different from every other human being.

That's not an easy thing to require of oneself.

I fail, often, to fully meet the standard. HOWEVER-- it is in holding the standard AS the standard that I am continually in need of examining my own beliefs and behaviors, and amending them where needed.

That doesn't mean that I lie down and play dead when someone seems not to be worth my respect, and let them run all over me. I require that I respect myself, as well.

Reconciling those two directions of respect can be quite a balancing act. I totter often. But when I calm down, I return over and over to that compass direction where I can honestly say that I respect another completely, and respect myself, at the same time.

Because I see so much conditionality in most of the "respect" demonstrated in this thread (while the easier route of debate was taken), I have found it unpleasant. But I respect the people in it, and I admire their effort to wrestle with the issues. There's nothing easy about any of the issues.


Hardi and I had an interesting continuation, the other day, of a long discussion we both hold dear... a subject we reflect about often as we learn and grow and hope to understgand things better. That is, a conversation about "moral and ethical theology." In moral theology (MT), it is considered an absolute to do or not to certain things. In ethical theology (ET), it is essential to consider the particulars of a situation in order to determine the "best" (most ethical) course.

These two aspects of theology must be looked at separately, but they actually exist simultaneously-- thus "Moral AND Ethical Theology." They can be diametrically opposed and yet simultaneously applicable. I'll call it "M&E T" just to save myself typing it over and over again. (I wish all Anglicans would use shorthand sometimes for the large concepts we thinking beings try to encompass!)

When we returned to that discussion, the occasion for my thought was a comment of Hardi's: as we drove down our usual route home and passed the area businesses, he casually wondered what was worse-- for our dear friend to have bought a cheap, lousy tuner from WalMart or from the thrift shop that poses as a music store in our area, that sells really bad musical equipment and instruments in an effort to "give music to the poor." Our friend had indeed bought a crap tuner-- limited income, the good store is an hour away, plus he's stuck close to home nowadays with a sick wife at home.

So we sympathized.... and wished we'd known he needed the new one because we could have made the trip for him and helped with the purchase price.

But suddenly I had the perfect metaphor for M&E T.

MT would say it's a sin to buy anything from WalMart. MT would also say it's a sin to buy anything at [insert thrift shop name].

But ET would say that our friend needed the tuner and did the best he could, given all the circumstances. Do the circumstances make it any less awful that he has a crap tuner, or does it make it any better if he went to WalMart? Or the thrift shop? No-- any musican would tell you that either way-- it's just WRONG to get that piece of crap. Any musician would also undertsnad that a guy's gotta do what a guy's gotta do. The friend is old, and deaf enough to really NEED that digital tuner, because he just loves, loves, LOVES to play; he gives joy to a lot of people with his music and the jokes he tells while he holds that banjo.

So I think most of you would agree that you could respect the friend, but not the tuner. :~) There you have it-- whatever your religious belief or nonbelief, you're capable of M&E T, and probably doing it unconsciously, often. Others of you, I'm sure, are wondering why a banjo player would want a tuner to begin with. :~)

Such is M&E T. You can respect the person, but not the action. It's a rewarding balancing act of the mind to attempt it under all circumstances. Because the moment you apply conditions to the effort, you've subtracted a large part of the respect. IMO.

~Susan