Chrono said:
I haven't followed this discussion at all, just skimmed a little and read this last post. Pretty interesting... Do you respect ayatollah Khomeini for leading to overthrow the Iranian shah, a dictator? Or al-Qaeda veterans who fought the communists in Afghanistan?
How are either of these things examples of "serving humanity"? Under some political view, they could possibly be construed as "furthering humanity" (in that they felt that these were necessary steps in order to produce a better society), but neither of them are "service" (i.e., humanitarian work) as commonly understood. If you suggest otherwise, you're being disingenuous.
Again, and for the last time, I am NOT saying that one must respect/agree with the Pope's entire life or all his beliefs/deeds. What I
am saying is that humanitarian work deserves a certain measure of respect
in and of itself to a proper degree (i.e., no one is asking you to bow before the Pope simply because he's done some humanitarian work). Yes, if Khomeini dedicated a substantial amount of his time to the furtherance of humanitarian/charitable causes, I would respect that as far as it goes
for its own sake. This of course would be severely mitigated by the fact that he's engaged in and orchestrated acts of violence; consequently, the "net respect" I would give to him would likely be negative, just as you are within your rights to accord the Pope a negative "net respect" while still respecting certain of his actions. This is all I've been saying.
personally I don't respect a good deed if the motive was sinister or selfish like serving your religion in some way
1) Sinister/selfish motives and doing something "to live up to the ideals of one's religion" are
not one and the same. If one did some good act simply due to fear of punishment by God (or, conversely, anticipation of reward from same), then yes, it could be construed as selfish. However, that's typically not the reason truly devout people do things...
2) Your disdain for religion is palpable, and you should really try to be less biased in your analyses of these issues. You trying to paint the Pope, of all people, as "self-serving" simply because he adhered to the dictums of his religion (indeed, the dictums which he helped shape), and worrying that his altruistic actions are thus "tainted" in some way, is rich.
but things like saying gays are evil put everything he did in a new perspective and DO influence any respect I or anybody might have for any good things he did.
Like I said to Nerevar, this basically means that you cannot respect a person
to any degree (again, keep in mind that I am speaking of a
limited and specific respect here, for
specific acts--
not that one should necessarily respect him in toto) unless you agree with them on every single issue down to the smallest detail, which will never happen. I don't agree with anyone on every single little thing, yet I still manage to respect a great many people for many different reasons to varying degrees. It's all about context and being able to appreciate things for what they are and not get needlessly embroiled in politics/ideology. Service is service is service. Period. That's how I see it.
Yes, you can allow your disagreements to influence your
overall "respect" of the person (which is why I said he needn't be
unduly venerated due to his humanitarian work, only to
the proper degree commensurate with the acts), but you should be able to separate that from your evaluation of certain other of his actions (viz., his humanitarian work). This is how I see things and how I generally try to view people. It's a healthier and more productive approach than expecting everyone to be perfect or to agree with all of my pet stances before I give them any measure of respect for any of their actions/beliefs.
