(and its Antithesis: the Burning of the Koran)
For many of us, respect is one of those subjects that is relatively easy to talk about but somewhat less easy to put into practice. Sometimes the discrepancy between my premeditated intentions and my actual behaviour is quite small and on other occasions somewhat larger!
Of course, discrepancies are there for us all, however, for some, who have a somewhat higher profile, it becomes a focus of local, national and even international attention. Into this category must come the actions of the American pastor Terry Jones who threatened to burn copies of the Koran on September 11, 2010. How was such a disrespectful and inflammatory action going to promote peace and harmony in the United States, never mind the wider world?
Well, six months on, the answer is there for all to see. On 20 March, under the supervision of Pastor Jones, US Pastor Wayne Sapp set light to a copy of the Koran at a church in Florida. Angered by the actions, demonstrations in Northern Pakistan have left 20 people dead, including 7 UN workers, 87 people injured and cars set on fire. A large and angry crowd surged through the streets of Kandahar, chanting "They have insulted our Koran" and "Death to America".
Despite clear evidence that these actions led to the murders and widespread violence in the Middle East, pastor Jones remains unrepentant and, indeed, has vowed to step up his provocative campaign against Islam!!
Arrogance? Foolishness? Bloody-mindedness? Self-centred?
Putting aside any comment on the pastors actions, this does raise the question, how are we to protest when we strongly disagree with someone yet maintaining respect for them as an individual? It must, in part, encompass the language we use and the methods we employ.
A verbal or a personal attack on an individual with the aim to harm or hurt can never be acceptable: actions stemming from anger are rarely, if ever, going to calm a situation. However, a challenge to their ideas or beliefs, where I maintain respect for the other and use non-inflammatory language, is quite appropriate - after all, is this not the basis of dialogue and discussion.
{dialogue: to explore areas of disagreement frankly in order to resolve them {even if the resolution is to ‘agree to disagree’); discussion: consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions.}
Of course, the degree to which I have control over my emotions during the exchange is the measure of my ability to maintain respect!
However, I believe there is also something much deeper than our language and our manner - I believe what lies at the heart of respect, in times of disagreement, is our intention.
A Prison Governor friend tells me that, with new staff, in a situation where a prisoner has broken the rules and the officer intends to put him/her on report, he will always impress upon them to first ask themselves, ‘what is my motivation for putting this person on report?’ Is it to bring benefit to the prisoner or might it be for ‘my own benefit?’ implying that it could be connected to ego’
If my words (or actions) are to diminish or bruise the other or to glorify or promote myself at the expense of another, then surely I need to refrain from comment. If my intent is truly for a nobler motive of offering a different way of looking at things, then fine. Within this, perhaps two key words are ‘offering’ and its oft-present side-kick, ‘expectation.’ My contribution to the discussion is just that – an offering, without the expectation that the other person should change and share my own beliefs.
This attitude would also suggest that I too would be open to hear and consider what the other person has to say to me. There is, after all, an expression that ‘God gave me two ears and only one mouth!’
Here lies the challenge: to respect the individual, to respect difference and diversity while holding opposing beliefs.
