Civility versus Respect

[JMHACLJ at aol.com]

Actually, I responded to the mention by another of McCarthy.  Another  on the 
list responded to my use of the term Democrat Party by using the logical  
fallacy of the poisoned well; essentially, that post put it this way, "McCarthy  
used the term so you must be a modern day equivalent of McCarthy."
 
 
In a message dated 7/22/2005 2:51:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
mnewsom at law.howard.edu writes:

 
Oh, I see.   Democrats are on a par with the Chinese and the North Korean 
communists?   Didn’t you mention McCarthy in an earlier post? 
-----Original  Message-----
From:  JMHACLJ at aol.com [mailto:JMHACLJ at aol.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:31  PM
To:  religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Civility versus  Respect 
 
 
In a  message dated 7/21/2005 12:16:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
jean.dudley at gmail.com writes:

I  respectfully disagree, Jim.  I was raised to show a set amount of  
respect to everyone.  That level of repsect is subject to change  
depending on the recipient's behavior.  And regardless of how low a  
person sinks, I will never follow them down to that level by actively  
showing disrespect for their humanity. 

That way lies the Shoa  and genocide. 

Nearer to, there lies rudeness and incivility.   In between are abuse and 
discrimination. 

We all live in this  society and the constant rubbing of human beings in 
the brownian motion  of life demands the lubricant of good manners, 
civility, and  respect.  Without it, all our lives would be the worse. 

Kindly  show me the respect of refering to my party as the Democratic  
party.  I'll return the favor by addressing you by the nomenclature  you 
request. 

 
And I  respectfully disagree that respect, as the dictionaries define it, is 
due  to everyone.  "Deferential regard."  
 
Again,  perhaps this reflects internal inconsistencies in my thoughts  and 
practices.  My children, the youths in my church group, the  students I teach, 
the attorneys across from whom I have practiced,  all will tell you, I believe, 
that I treat people decently, that I am not  a "taker," that I give place to 
others, that I often model preferring others  over myself in love and 
devotion.  No, I am not perfect.  In fact,  this approach is a characteristic of my 
nature.   
 
But  "deferential regard" is another matter entirely.  
 
When  the flag of the United States is saluted with a performance of the 
National  Anthem, I stand still with my hand on my heart.  In major part that act  
of "deferential regard" reflects on the selfless devotion of those who gave  
for our liberty-blessed land the last full measure of their  devotion.  And, 
when the Pope speaks -- and I am not Catholic -- I listen  in duly respectful 
silence and then consider his words.   
 
But  I'll be dog-gonned if I am going to stand still and salute the flag of 
the  Chicomms or the North Koreans.  Some folks have purchased my respect by  
their labors, their faithful service, their self-sacrifice, their devotion to  
duty.  Others than them, I recognize to be true objects of God's love and  
affection, and I treat them accordingly.  But "deferential disregard" is  not due 
to them.
 
Nor,  have I yet been responsible for Shoa or Holocaust, because those who 
see in  every other person the object of God's love and affection need not 
respect the  desire of others to be called right when they are wrong but they do no 
 harm to those others for that reason.
 
Jim  Henderson
 
Senior  Counsel
 
ACLJ




 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050722/d5e26d53/attachment.htm