Respect Me!

[Bubba_Switzler]

It was not a total shock to encounter this, I’d read similar arguments in various publications, most often from homosexual activists. Still, it’s one thing to read it and another thing entirely to come face to face with it.

So here it is: the claim that if you disagree with someone’s choice you are disrespecting them and it’s wrong to disrespect someone. We owe everyone our respect and therefore we owe them our tolerance for their choices if not our explicit or at least tacit condoning.

At first I thought this might just be a rhetorical slight of hand, a way to win an argument without having to argue, but now I think it goes much deeper than that. It is, I think, sincerely believed that all ways are equally good though, oddly, the orthodox way almost never is.

I wonder if anyone else has encountered this in face to face discussions with people you know and how you handled it. What I perceive is that as soon as judgement enters the discussion, a mental force fields goes up and nothing further can penetrate. Even appeals to cold hard facts and evidence are brushed aside in the desire to first establish non-judgemental grounds. (One can almost imagine a court judge acting on a counselor’s objection: the evidence is not admissable because it may suggest that one way is better than another.)

 

[fhansen]

It was not a total shock to encounter this, I’d read similar arguments in various publications, most often from homosexual activists. Still, it’s one thing to read it and another thing entirely to come face to face with it.

So here it is: the claim that if you disagree with someone’s choice you are disrespecting them and it’s wrong to disrespect someone. We owe everyone our respect and therefore we owe them our tolerance for their choices if not our explicit or at least tacit condoning.

At first I thought this might just be a rhetorical slight of hand, a way to win an argument without having to argue, but now I think it goes much deeper than that. It is, I think, sincerely believed that all ways are equally good though, oddly, the orthodox way almost never is.

I wonder if anyone else has encountered this in face to face discussions with people you know and how you handled it. What I perceive is that as soon as judgement enters the discussion, a mental force fields goes up and nothing further can penetrate. Even appeals to cold hard facts and evidence are brushed aside in the desire to first establish non-judgemental grounds. (One can almost imagine a court judge acting on a counselor’s objection: the evidence is not admissable because it may suggest that one way is better than another.)

The question can be posed as, ‘Canwe disagree with someone’s choices and still love and respect them?’ and the answer, IMO, is an emphatic, ‘yes!’, regardless of whether or not the answer satisfies everyone.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The question can be posed as, ‘Canwe disagree with someone’s choices and still love and respect them?’ and the answer, IMO, is an emphatic, ‘yes!’, regardless of whether or not the answer satisfies everyone.

Obvioulsy we agree on this. But what I have found is that people who feel their choices are being challenged are only too happy to hold themselves hostage and insist, to the contrary, that you cannot love and respect them without agreeing with their choices. Indeed, disagreeing with their choices is proof positive that you hate them. (One way to think about this is that they are so committed to their choices that the choice becomes an essential part of their self-identity.)

This also raises a secondary question, how to show love and disagreement at the same time over the longer term given the above.

 

[fhansen]

Obvioulsy we agree on this. But what I have found is that people who feel their choices are being challenged are only too happy to hold themselves hostage and insist, to the contrary, that you cannot love and respect them without agreeing with their choices. Indeed, disagreeing with their choices is proof positive that you hate them. (One way to think about this is that they are so committed to their choices that the choice becomes an essential part of their self-identity.)

This also raises a secondary question, how to show love and disagreement at the same time over the longer term given the above.

It’s very difficult. The CC is being increasingly accused of intolerance, lack of love, lack of respect for it’s position on many issues, homosexuality and gay marriage being perfect examples. We first of all must love genuinely, and, going hand-in-hand with this, be unafraid to stand for truth, but none of that will necessarily win us any poularity contests; it got Jesus killed, infact. To be clear, most homosexuals don’t consider their lifestyles to be a choice, but rather to simply be the way they were made.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It’s very difficult. The CC is being increasingly accused of intolerance, lack of love, lack of respect for it’s position on many issues, homosexuality and gay marriage being perfect examples. We first of all must love genuinely, and, going hand-in-hand with this, be unafraid to stand for truth, but none of that will necessarily win us any poularity contests; it got Jesus killed, infact. To be clear, most homosexuals don’t consider their lifestyles to be a choice, but rather to simply be the way they were made.

You’re preaching to the choir, my friend.

But in my case, I am dealing with someone in person. It’s not a matter of being or not being popular but of getting through to her in time to make a difference.

(For more details on the specifics, see: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=740827)

 

[JRKH]

The question can be posed as, ‘Canwe disagree with someone’s choices and still love and respect them?’ and the answer, IMO, is an emphatic, ‘yes!’, regardless of whether or not the answer satisfies everyone.

Obvioulsy we agree on this. But what I have found is that people who feel their choices are being challenged are only too happy to hold themselves hostage and insist, to the contrary, that you cannot love and respect them without agreeing with their choices. Indeed, disagreeing with their choices is proof positive that you hate them. (One way to think about this is that they are so committed to their choices that the choice becomes an essential part of their self-identity.)

To me, the problem with this view is that they only hold it as being one sided. Do they respect you and your choices? The obvious breakdown in this is the proper application of the Golden Rule. Each side wants to be respected…and deserves to be respected…but where their is disagreement that respect must take a different form. It cannot simply be - do whatever you want, it’s OK with me" - rather, it requires a free and respectful exchange of views and ideas. It can even involve a loving attempt to influence the views and the position of the other person for their own betterment.
None of this is disrespectful.

This also raises a secondary question, how to show love and disagreement at the same time over the longer term given the above.

When Jesus sent the Apostles out on their own he told them that if any house or town would not hear them they were to leave that house or town and shake the dust from their sandals.
This is very applicable here as well. I don’t mean that you should cut the person off - not be their friend any more…but once the topic has been exhausted…the respectful thing to do is to leave it and move on…unless and until something new comes up and requires that the topic be revisited.

In this way - everybody respects the views of everyone else. Everyone holds their head up and Agape is strengthened - which just might win a soul later on down the road…

Peace
James

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

To me, the problem with this view is that they only hold it as being one sided. Do they respect you and your choices? The obvious breakdown in this is the proper application of the Golden Rule. Each side wants to be respected…and deserves to be respected…but where their is disagreement that respect must take a different form. It cannot simply be - do whatever you want, it’s OK with me" - rather, it requires a free and respectful exchange of views and ideas. It can even involve a loving attempt to influence the views and the position of the other person for their own betterment. None of this is disrespectful.

This is the accusation of hypocrisy, however subtly it is cast. To a certain extent I have achieved this insofar as the dialog continues. But, as noted above, the force field is up.

When Jesus sent the Apostles out on their own he told them that if any house or town would not hear them they were to leave that house or town and shake the dust from their sandals.
This is very applicable here as well. I don’t mean that you should cut the person off - not be their friend any more…but once the topic has been exhausted…the respectful thing to do is to leave it and move on…unless and until something new comes up and requires that the topic be revisited. In this way - everybody respects the views of everyone else. Everyone holds their head up and Agape is strengthened - which just might win a soul later on down the road…

This is, of course, the last resort. But I don’t like it and I’m hoping to find a better alternative. I’d rather not be the one who ends the dialog just because I don’t see myself making progress against the force field.

 

[JRKH]

This is the accusation of hypocrisy, however subtly it is cast. To a certain extent I have achieved this insofar as the dialog continues. But, as noted above, the force field is up.

Force fields cannot be overcome by force…It’s one of the great advantages of our faith that our greatest strength lies in gentleness.

This is, of course, the last resort. But I don’t like it and I’m hoping to find a better alternative. I’d rather not be the one who ends the dialog just because I don’t see myself making progress against the force field.

Understood. But it really doesn’t have to be thought of as a “last resort”. Rather, you might think of it as a position of “siege”. As a presence in their life, loving, caring, but uncompromising in your beliefs, you remain a force acting on their conscience. IF in your seeking a 'better alternative" they wind up labeling you as unloving and cutting you out of their life, you have lost the ability to be an influence.

Of course - only you can decide what is best within the context of your friendship and the conversation.
May God guide you…

Peace
James

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Force fields cannot be overcome by force…It’s one of the great advantages of our faith that our greatest strength lies in gentleness.

Understood. But it really doesn’t have to be thought of as a “last resort”. Rather, you might think of it as a position of “siege”. As a presence in their life, loving, caring, but uncompromising in your beliefs, you remain a force acting on their conscience. IF in your seeking a 'better alternative" they wind up labeling you as unloving and cutting you out of their life, you have lost the ability to be an influence.

Yes, that is the delicate dance. I like your loving, caring siege metaphor and I will give thought to how I might go about it.

 

[JRKH]

Yes, that is the delicate dance. I like your loving, caring siege metaphor and I will give thought to how I might go about it.

Smiles and a calm voice I have found to be the biggest and most effective weapons along with the careful choice of words so that one is firm and clear but not “fire and brimstone”.

You are right. It is a delicate dance.

Peace
James

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Here comes a perfect example of what I have encountered:

thegloss.com/2013/05/07/culture/elizabeth-smart-abstinence-education-rape-culture/

csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0504/Elizabeth-Smart-speaks-on-human-trafficking

thegloss.com/2013/04/12/sex-and-dating/if-youre-having-sex-youre-not-an-ok-person/

Essentialy the article author is citing victim-hero Elizabeth Smart by slandering those who advocate for abstinance.

Smart now believes that to be a harmful approach to sex ed, and that kids should be taught that “you will always have value and nothing can change that.” Once again, this seems like it should be obvious. And yet, people like Pam Stenzel are still allowed to go around to public schools telling kids that if they have sex, they are awful people whose lives will be ruined forever.

Now I have never listened to Pam Stenzel but I have had the accusation hurled against me personally that if I am critical of the choice to engage in promiscuous sex I am ipso facto devaluing, indeed have permanently devalued, those who practice it. According to the author, I am a contributor to sex trafficing. Facts be damned, it is the very act of being critical that is condemned.