Argument of RESPECT

Argument ad reverentiam, Latin reverentia “respectful fear’.

Respect is a feeling projected by authority, regardless of who or what it may be. Organizations and individuals who are legally vested with the proper authority to carry out a mission claim respect in that role, regardless of one’s private opinion about its relevance or effectiveness.

Claiming respect is different from claiming obedience. One can be compelled to obey by lawful force, but showing respect is essentially an adjunct to obedience. Interactions with common authorities are therefore governed by specific conventions of courtesy, for example, the closing formula “Yours respectfully,” conveys this conventional respect to the addressed in a formal letter.

As an internal feeling toward a person or institution, respect must be earned. Nevertheless, some behavior, whether intentional or not, may be perceived as disrespectful. If it involves a public official or police officer, it may be considered as an insult and punished as such. The argument from respect is used to justify sanctions for a lack of respect, see authority; modesty.

Any person in a position of authority who feels that their prerogatives are not being respected may invoke the argument from respect. The problem arises when this claim to authority is not recognized, or is even seen as oppressive, as may be the case with religious authorities. At a more abstract level, the right to respect is claimed for all beliefs in general, and for one’s own beliefs in particular. Disrespect is considered a provocation, scandal, or blasphemy that seriously hurts a believer’s feelings, and a complaint can be filed in court to uphold the right to respect. Consider the following case.

« Despicable Profanation of a Christ on the Cross”

A controversial situation involving an argument about respect developed around a photographic work by the American artist Andres Serrano, entitled Immersion Piss Christ. The piece features a crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine. On Sunday, April 17, 2011, it was vandalized at the Yvon Lambert Collection of Contemporary Art in Avignon, France.

The Archbishop of Avignon issued a statement protesting the exhibition of the piece, and thus justifying its destruction. The argument of (lack of) respect is invoked in the following passage:

Should the local authorities not ensure respect for the faith of believers of any religion? Nevertheless, such a work is a desecration that touches us deeply on the eve of Good Friday, when we remember Christ, who died on the cross for us.

The argument is then repeated and amplified (our emphasis):

– The despicable desecration of a Christ on the Cross (title)
– Can art be in such bad taste for no other reason than to insult?
– I must respond to this despicable image that disrespects the image of Christ on the cross–the heart of our Christian faith. Every attack on our faith hurts us, every believer is deeply affected.
– Given the gravity of such an affront
– For me, as a bishop, and for every Christian and every believer, this is a provocation, and desecration that hurts us in the heart of our faith!
– Did the Lambert Collection not realize that these images would seriously hurt all those for whom the Cross of Christ is the heart of their faith? Did they intend to provoke the faithful by disrespecting what is at the heart of their lives?
– This is a grave desecration, a scandal that affects the faith of these believers.
– [These images] seriously harm the faith of Christians.
– This behavior hurts us at the heart of our faith.
Infocatho, [Ugly Desecration of a Christ on the Cross], 2011[1]

In some countries, blasphemy laws punish what they consider to be contempt and disrespect for the state religion, and blasphemy is treated as any other crime. Campaigns against blasphemy laws develop a counter-discourse arguing that such laws are medieval, obscurantist, incompatible with the basic democratic principle of freedom of expression, and that they make all philosophical and historical inquiry into religious belief impossible.
Other countries have laws prohibiting hate speech or discriminatory speech, to guarantee equal rights for minority communities, religious or otherwise.

The argument of (a lack of) respect was at the heart of the case concerning the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in a Danish satirical weekly in 2005. The case culminated in the 2015 terrorist attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, in which two Islamist terrorists shot dead 11 journalists and staff.

[1] “Odieuse Profanation d’un Christ en Croix”, Infocatho. http://infocatho.cef.fr/fichiers_html/archives/deuxmil11sem/semaine15/210nx151europeb.html 09-20-2013