Thanks Pam. I'm a bit shy though to be on CNN. I did a reading for my new church a few weeks ago, and people could barely hear my voice. I found an Episcopalian church that seems to be more tolerant of differing views.

I don't watch pundits on cable, but I've heard they could be rude. I didn't think of that as an influence, but I think you're right that they are. A lot of conversations that I've had with conservatives have been more like annoying monologues- they'd ignore what I have to say, and talk down to me and lecture me. There's no real give and take in that. I really don't mind it if people disagree with me as long as they respect my own opinions as well.

I have enjoyed the posts of yours I have read, Angelo, and find in them gentle wisdom. My post intends to take seriously the trajectories of thinking yours inspired for me, not necessarily to ascribe to you any of the positions herein challenged by me.

Tolerance and respect are strange beasts. We encourage tolerance, except in the face of the intolerable. I once heard the great Stanley Fish give a speech at Dartmouth on "boutique postmodernism." He suggested the postmodernists tolerate all truths . . . that is, until the Nazi walks in the door. Tolerance, like all of our highest values, devalues itself (yes, a thinly veiled Nietzsche reference). What "tolerance" typically means is we should tolerate those perspectives that do not offend our sensibilities too greatly.

Should we respect the opinions of those with whom we disagree or should we respect the people? Is respect earned? Can it be forfeited with the "wrong" opinion? I do love to argue, debate, engage in contestatory dialogue, and the like. Decades of debating teaches me that every side of any issue can be argued and defended effectively.

For me, western Kansas has proven a difficult place to disagree with folks. Rather than forthright contestation, many of those whom I engage seem to prefer a polite nod and a subsequent knife. Right now, I would prefer a passionate monologue (which I would interrupt frequently) to the quiet dispassion of duplicity. People often confuse their ideas with themselves, misinterpreting, in my opinion, disagreement for disrespect. Passion is understood univocally as irrational (as if rationality were the savior of the West, rather than its bane).

I watch the McLaughlin Group religiously. They disagree loudly and frequently. They interrupt, shout, rant, argue, all the while evincing a heartfelt belief in democratic dialogue. Passion abounds. Amidst the chaos, truths emerge: there is no Truth, only truthS. Words world as worlds revolve, devolve, dissolve.

We must go through nihilism—the devaluation of our highest values—to decide what value our values hold, argued Nietzsche. As we bear witness to the disintegration of all we value, what value will we find? “Courage slays dizziness at the edge of abysses.” And where do we now stand, America, except at the edge of our own abyssal collapse? Abysmal or revelatory, prescient, necessary? Courage, indeed!

Bill, wow. I know you are right. Like Angelo, I don't watch those pundit monologues on TV either (I'm not familiar with the McLaughlin Group but I'll try to catch it one day). In truth, my avoidance of those yelling matches has been fueled by a desire for self-preservation. During the Bush years, while the far right controlled both Congress and the White House, I felt oppressed. If I inadvertently found myself watching an angry right wing pundit yell on FoxNews, then, from my position of feeling oppressed and powerless, the yelling made me feel even worse - almost battered and abused. So, since I could not change who controlled the government nor how they harmed peopled, I chose not to let their minions yell at me also. We are now emerging from that era and I find myself drawn to the kinder, gentler discourse that Angelo describes. Yet, I know that what you say is true too, Bill. I do admire and find myself drawn to the passionate. If I am the most honest - I am drawn to blogs (both reading and writing them) because they are exactly like passionate monologues. I celebrate the raw passion (dare I say love?) for ideals and issues that I see arise on the page when a blogger has the freedom to engage in passionate monologue. So, I know you are right, Bill.

Let me say too that I really value the blog posts by both of you guys - Angelo and Bill. Both of you put so much thought into your words and seek to understand and be understood - through your passionate monologues!

I've enjoyed what both of you have said here!

Nora T.

Great comments all. I've never read Nietzsche, Bill, but I have a book called Fifty Major Philosophers, that's sort of like a Cliff Notes for philosophers. You asked some very pertinent questions, one that I'd like to mull over a bit. "Should we respect the opinions of those with whom we disagree or should we respect the people? Is respect earned? Can it be forfeited with the "wrong" opinion?" Off hand, I think we should always respect the people who hold the beliefs. But there's a limit to the kinds of differences opinions that any person can respect. I don't agree with an unfettered free market, but I can respect the ideas in it. But I really cannot respect Naziism, as an example that you gave.

Is respect earned? I don't think we have to like every one, but we should respect every person. I don't always live up to this, but I do think it's always best to judge the actions but not the person. I don't think a person should lose that respect for having a wrong opinion, because we're all flawed: we all at some point will be wrong about something. Some of the people I've admired in history have had wrong opinions. Thomas Jefferson was wrong in his opinion that African Americans were inferior to Caucasians. But I still admire Jefferson's attempts to abolish slavery and end the slave trade, for writing the Declaration of Independence and fighting for its ideas, for expanding public education, and for establishing the separation of church and state. I always think that given the right circumstances, Jefferson would've grown out of those racist assumptions, as other figures like Benjamin Franklin, Malcolm X, and George Wallace, had the capacity to grow out of their early racist beliefs. Lincoln had similar racist beliefs, but the sacrifice of African American soldiers during the Civil War and meetings with Frederick Douglass led Lincoln to a similar change of views on race. Having a wrong view, in these cases, is not fatal if the person is open to having their views challenged and they have a capacity to grow. It's only if a person is unable to listen and change, if they filter out only those facts that fit their world view and ignore facts that don't fit, in that case I think having a wrong viewpoint is fatal.

Like Nora, I enjoy passionate monologues too. When I can, I try to read the posts here at Everyday Citizen, and I admire the passion of these bloggers and activists. It's that passion that begets active and involved citizens of this country. I don't agree quite a bit with my brother-in-law's politics, but we both love our country and want the best for it. We just have different visions of what is best for our country.

I agree with what Bill wrote after watching the McLaughlin Group debates: there is not one Truth, but many truths. I think truth can only come from the passionate clash of different views. I think that's one of the central faiths of democracy, a very American idea.

In my opinon, there IS Truth, but each of us only knows part of it, no matter how enlightened we are. Even Christ for example, fully human, while at the same time divine, may have had to share this needy human condition of not knowing everything in advance, I guess somehow at the behest of own divine wisdom.

I enjoy passionate, respectful discourse. I am needy of it and like you, seem to require this kind of intellectual food...just so everybody comes away a little more enlightened.

Sometimes you'll learn something new from others. Sometimes you hit upon something new, even great, as you yourself are saying it. It's fun.

I would postulate in addition, that respect is something that is given - regardless. Were it to be earned, not only would it never be needed, but it could devolve to: "I like you, because you or your notions remind me of me" which is a lot like talking to the mirror, or maybe talking to yourself, both of which may be a little crazy and probably wasteful past-times in the big scheme of things.

Thank you Jean for your insights. You're right that respect is given regardless. I also agree that we can all learn from other people, even people we disagree with. Because we are human, even the most intelligent of us will be limited in our knowledge and will sometimes be wrong. We all need to hear from other perspectives, to learn to see from other eyes.

Pam, don't worry. I'm fairly t.v. illiterate as well.

Respect given, regardless of anything? Respect all others, maybe even begin to understand what motivates them? Hear other perspectives, learn to see from other eyes, with respect given regardless? What if the Truth heard, seen, perceived so offends, respect is not possible, should not be given? How hard is it to imagine a scenario where respect is not desired, not deserved, not possible of being earned?

Should one respect the pedophile who just moved into the neighborhood, regardless of one's concern for one's children? Should one try to see the world from the pedophile's eyes? Should one try to understand what motivates pedophiles, what their urges are? What if their Truth, for instance, is little boys just don't know how to love yet and their role, just like any educator, is to teach them man/boy love?

Respect (unbridled, unmitigated respesct regardless) might risk the well-being of one's children. One might be wise to try to understand what motivates pedophiles in the hopes of preventing them from harming one's children, but remember, in that world, with that Truth, parental protection actually hurts children. This "prejudice," that young boys, for example, should not engage in sexual relations with middle-aged men, reveals to the pedophile only "bigotry," "disrespectful discrimination without proper understanding."

Perhaps compassion, even forgiveness is justified, but respect? Respect regardless? Regardless of damage done or lives ruined? As a fallen Catholic who understands the role of absolution in a loving faith, I cannot wonder if forgiveness slid too easily into enabling, aiding and abetting, and even protection from prosecution during the Church's struggles with pedophilia. Should I respect those priests, the way I respected the priest who helped minister my family growing up, a priest who earned our respect everyday, who sat at our dinner table?

What if the pedophile hurts your child? What if they devastate the one's you love? Why should you respect them? How could you respect them? Respect the torturer? Hell, Jeffrey Dahmer murdered, mutilated, tortured, and cannibalized how many boys and young men?

Respect devalues itself around the difficult cases. Respecting those who disagree with you, when the disagreements circulate around the size of government, is easy. "Respect" really means "respect those who you choose to respect and are able to respect," which is a far cry from what is being discussed here, I think. Respect regardless or absolute respect is as dangerous and paralyzing as absolute intolerance or absolute tolerance.

Our highest values, I posit again, devalue themselves (thankfully). Faith can be a beautiful thing, allowing us easy sleep and providing relief in the face of tragedy, but sometimes faith prevents the very capacity we require if we are to survive these challenging times, for example, incredulity and suspicion.

Check with the millennial generation, if you want a genuine lesson in nihilism. Inquire (respectfully, of course) into the consequences of boutique postmodernism and relativism. With too much faith, too much respect, too much tolerance, we lose the ability to think critically, to challenge authority, to repudiate what our great nation is becoming. Want to see "respect regardless," check out the social networking sites so popular with the millennials, check out their (online) worlds, or sit in on a college classroom.

As for television, I know it is a badge of honor among high culturalists to disrespect low culture, but PBS too? Really?

Those are good points Bill. I guess because of my childhood Catholic upbringing, I do believe there is worth even in the lowest among us. I would try to respect a pedophile, even if I would make sure that pedophile is not in any position to hurt any children. I saw a movie a while back, the Woodsman, with Kevin Bacon, and it's about a pedophile who is trying to go on the straight and narrow after serving time for abusing a little girl. He spends his life keeping to himself and gets harassed when his coworkers find out his secret. A long time ago I had a friend who was an alcoholic. I still respected the friend, even though I deplored how he was when he had too much to drink.

I have to admit though that trying to respect everyone is hard. In my personal life, I've gone through some conflicts where I lost the trust of people who I had thought of as friends. After being harassed by them, I have tried to dissassociate myself from them. You mentioned in your 2 posts Nazis and pedophiles, and I have to admit that realisticly speaking, it would be hard for me to be nonjudgemental towards them.

We may have different definitions of what "respect" means. You wrote, "Respect regardless or absolute respect is as dangerous and paralyzing as absolute intolerance or absolute tolerance." You're right that any value taken to an extreme tends to be dangerous. When I mention that a person should be respected regardless, it was in response to Jean, who seemed to be coming from a Christian viewpoint. And from that viewpoint, all people are valuable as creations of God, separate from the evils and sins that they do. It's sort of judging the actions but not the person. From my understanding, the Christian perspective is that all people are redeemable, even a Nazi and a pedophile.

You're right that forgiveness can slide too easily into enabling, as when a parent of an addict tries to explain away the offspring's actions. Even if they are to be forgiven, a Nazi and a pedophile would still have to face the consequences of hurting their victims, and would have to be imprisoned to protect society around them. It's like that movie, Dead Man Walking, where a nun tries to redeem a convicted killer before he gets executed. There's no denying the evil of the actions of the convicted killer and the rightness of his being imprisoned. But the sister still finds something human in that killer. Underneath even the worse monsters are still human beings.

The human species is incredibly complex. People can do deplorable acts yet still be loving friends and family members. I think within each of us is the capability of great good and great evil. Because of that, we are right to condemn evil actions, yet still must be obligated to respect each indivicual person.

Hi Pam, just to let you know, my wife and I watch a lot of Top Chef and Project Runway. It's a lot of fun. I don't watch much t.v. because I'm busy doing artwork.

I think what I mean by respect may be different than what you or Bill are using. When I say respect, it doesn't necessarily mean approval of that person's actions. When I wrote that I would try to respect a predophile, it doesn't mean I would respect child molesting. I still think that person would have to face punishment for their actions. I wrote my reply after watching Dead Man Walking and I agree with the nun in the movie. She tries to reach the humanity of a murderer who killed a couple and raped the woman. He deserved to be in jail and the victims' families had a right to be angry at him. But the nun still tried to reach out to the killer, based on the idea that we could all be redeemed, no matter how horrible the crime. I guess that's the part that should be respected, the redeemable part of the person. In saying this, I don't live up to this high altruism or generosity. But I read about people like Gandhi and St. Francis and it seems to be an idea worth striving for.