I wanted to respond to the voting question of who would you treat with respect. I wanted to answer "all of the above" but I hesitated upon seeing Manson and Hitler on the list. When I was in retail, we had a frequent customer who was vocally anti-Semitic. Admittedly, I tried to avoid him but when that wasn't possible, I treated him respectfully (though not warmly). I suppose you can't help the feeling in your stomach, but you can control your behavior. Good enough?

"People who fight fire with fire usually end up with ashes." (Abigail Van Buren)

Should anyone respect evil?
Should anyone respect anyone who is evil?
What does respectfulness in these situations say about our character?

Is forced respect really respect?

I come from a country where there is a man running the country who has committed many atrocities and rigged many elections. He has denuded the country of its wealth and at the expense of millions of people lives in his own oasis in the lap of luxury. His name is Robert Mugabe. To his face, anybody who wishes to live through the experience is very respectful and polite; however, google his name and see what people are really thinking.

Feigned respect is no respect at all. However, is there not a point at which a person loses the right to be respected?

Does an abused child still need to respect the parent who abused her? Is respect inextricably linked to obedience? Does respect mean the same as honor, as in the Ten Commandments ("Honor your Father and Mother")?

My personal opinion is that our default setting should be that of respect, but just like on a computer, settings can and sometimes must be changed and in certain respects (no pun intended) the respect button must be turned off. To respect an evil person is, to my mind, to disrespect those whose lives he or she destroyed.

We should respect evil for it can harm us.
However, we should attempt to eradicate evil or
at least minimize it in a lawful manner.

Once again, anyone who is evil must be respected
for it can harm us, but we must attempt to avoid it. However, always keep a safe distance from the evil one. If the evil individual is, or is about to, cause bodily harm to someone, quickly report it to the proper authorities.

Our character must be honorable, but we must be poised to confront and deal with evil. We must never be cowed by the action of evil.
In a civilized, respectful, and brave manner, we must hold our stand to righteousness and use any means to control evil or evildoers of bad faith.

Yes, you still have a moral responsibility to respect evil people. You don't have to accept their evil ways. It may be difficult, but being respectful may help them see the light. You can be respectful without damaging your character.

Respect for those you listed in the survey would require interaction. I doubt if the normal everyday person would have that chance.

Holding contempt for a person does not preclude civility. Treating another like a fellow human being is character. Your feelings are often set aside. Decency comes from you.

For dealing with evil people, respect is wise on a pragmatic level. How we respond to the acts done by evil people should be guided by respect for principles, even when we strongly dislike the acts and sometimes the people. Osama Bin Laden used to be our friend when he was fighting the Russians. Was he worthy of respect then?

There is a difference between treating people with respect and actually respecting them. Evil does not need respect. What is the point of being disrespectful to anyone? Someone has to model the desired behavior. Good character is not returning violence for violence, no matter what the form of the violence.

This was really difficult for me. I wanted to, but could not bring myself to say I would show respect to Charles Manson, Bernie Madoff, Bin Laden, or Hitler. In my opinion, they have gone way beyond nasty, dishonorable, or disrespectful. They are evil menaces to society. It brings me to a quote by Michael Josephson: "The enduring impact of our choices is not what we get, but what we become." Their choices in how they live/lived their lives became their destiny.

You make a distinction that appears to have been overlooked by many of the blog posters. There is a difference between respecting someone and being respectful toward someone; between respect and respecfulness. "There’s an important distinction between respecting a person in the sense that we admire and hold that person in high esteem and treating others with respect. While respecting others is desirable, respectfulness is morally mandatory." Respect is earned, respectfulness is an attitude.

I once worked for a national organization that served older people. One day a consultant we had just hired was touring the office and shook hands with everybody.

When he left, I asked someone who he was, and was shocked to learn he used to be a notorious telemarketer scam artist who specifically preyed on people with Alzheimer's. He would call them up and berate them for not sending in their "check" (often in the amounts of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars). The poor victims, who owed no money whatsoever but had severe memory loss and knew it, would panic and send in the money, assuming they had forgotten. This man wiped out the life savings of hundreds of families.

He was eventually caught and went to prison. When he came out, we hired him as a "consumer advocate" to warn others about the kind of scams he used to operate.

When I heard this, I nearly got sick. I rushed to the bathroom to wash my hands because I realized I had just shook his hand. If I had known beforehand who he was, I not only would have refused to shake his hand, I would have told him to his face why and demanded he leave the building. I would have made a scene.

This is the only time I've ever differed from Michael Josephson. In no way would I have shown this individual one ounce of respect or been respectful in his presence.

How do you "respectfully" sentence someone to death or to life in prison for their crimes? I would only encounter (not atually meet) some of these people if I were a member of the jury deciding their fate. In this situation, the question has no meaning because it is too broad. How I would act if I met someone someone who was unpleasant to me in the past (a former boss comes to mind; sadly, he alienated nearly everyone who worked for him and most people he dealt with) is quite different from how I would react upon meeting a mass murderer!

It may be terminology here, but I would have to disagree with you here based on my understanding of respect. Respect is something that is earned -- as opposed to something that is universally owned by all beings. That's why I answered "No" to all but two (my ex and former drill sergeant) in the second poll. The actions/choices by each of the others sufficiently proves they are undeserving of my respect.

However, if your definition of "respect" is something more along the lines of common courtesy, then for the most part I would agree.

"Hello, Mr. Manson. How are you today?"

"You have a rather peculiar set of beliefs, Mr. Bin Laden."

"May I call you Bernie?"

It just seems wrong.

By acting with respect, you maintain/protect your character. In no way does this mean you necessarily respect another's actions or views. By working in retail, I quickly learned the best way to respond to anger, rudeness, etc., was with respect as in "kill them with kindness." A hostile customer's actions then remained his or her problem. I do not respect a killer or a thief's actions, but I will not lower my character by wasting my time "dis" respecting them. Their character is what it is... and their problem. Why put my character in jeopardy?

An American in a leading position once told me "Authority is contingent to respect
far more than respect is contingent to authority." That was 35 years ago, but it still holds.

When reading about Hitler and him "helping the poor," I get that uneasy feeling in my stomach. I have been in an e-mail exchange for about ten years now with an American and felt obliged to give some information that does not even run around in my country.
Here is a copy of my e-mail:

Re: Hitler helping the jobless and the economy? NO!

You know as well as anyone that Hitler was able to stay in power due to the
SS and the workings of Himmler and the Gestapo. In the early days of the
Nazi Party, the people supported what Hitler had done for the German
economy. Who on earth could fight effectively against that?

Dear Thomas,
I am afraid to say that this is, historically speaking, counter factual.
The predecessor of the Third Reich was the Weimar Republic.
During this time we had foreign ministers with a deeply democratic attitude.
They were the ones who, in diplomatic bargaining, moved the victorious powers to release the German state from paying more reparations.
These treaties were to become effective in 1934 and 1935.

What our professor told us is that it is a deadly sin of successful good politics to not use the media and influence the public opinion. To rattle with the tools is part of the art, so to speak. Our foreign ministers with a democratic attitude were too noble to make PR for their work, so they committed this deadly sin.

The fruits of the work of our democratic ministers during the Weimar Republic fell into the lap of Hitler who would never have been able to bring this diplomatic change about! He just was able to make use of these sums for (re)construction. And what did he do? Work with the militaristic industry bosses. Our “Autobahn”s (nationwide highway system) were at the same time runways for airplanes. The military planned for wartime that early.

The fairy tale about Hitler helping the jobless goes around among uneducated Germans to date, among them a professor of law whom I corrected in public after his lecture. This is unusual and few would have the audacity to do so, but someone has to stop this nonsense where and when it is passed along.

Yet another thing: although visible everywhere, the paramilitary entities of Hitler were just a split of the German society. What about the majority who did not raise their voices? Edmund Burkes's quote fully holds that evil only grows where good men stand by and do nothing.

One will never be able to explain what happened in Germany by the relatively small number of active participants in the atrocities, but one can certainly explain it by the silence of the bystanders looking the other way.

The Germans who were ethical and acted ethically were 0.1 percent of the population, and we have statistical figures that nowadays the number has not increased. American journalist Dr. Donald Jordan in 1995: "The mentality of a people does not change so fast."

Statistics that are not published tell us that three to four percent of the Germans can be taught to make educated choices. The rest is simply not teachable; they cannot correct themselves. I was told so by one of our former Federal State Presidents in a personal talk.

I have been looking for a scientific evaluation of the re-education of Germans by the Americans after WWII. I would like to ask them whether they know about such study. We have neo-Nazis who become more and more active, even stabbing an anti-Nazi police chief in Bavaria at the front door of his home. Thank God he survived and is back to work by now.

Respect is defined by Webster as "to consider deserving of high regard; esteem." Common courtesy is ordinary or usual politeness. That said, I would never hold the specific individuals on your list in high regard because in doing so I would be agreeing with their beliefs and practices. Likewise, I do not respect a coworker who is vindictive and lazy, but I show her the common courtesy of saying good morning when I see her. Would I say good morning to any of the “gentlemen” on your list? Never. These people have done extraordinary and uncivilized things that do not make them worthy of even common politeness.

There is a difference between respecting a person and treating a person with respect. People of character treat all people with respect whether they are worthy of it or not. Because not to would be diminishing our own selves, for as we diminish or treat others, we are representing ourselves. But we do not personally need to feel respect for all people.

Having said that, except for only the most evil people, all life has value and hence is worthy of respect. Because of the fact that we exist at all, we have value. There is value in life itself, so since life itself has the ultimate value, then all humans should be respected. Let the judgment and punishment be doled out by a power greater than ourselves.

I begin with a quote from your article, "The way we behave toward others is an expression of our values and character. Thus, we should treat others with respect not because they have a right but because we have a moral duty to do unto others the way we want them to do unto us."

Although sometimes hard to do, we should always respect the position, even when the person in the position does not deserve respect. To turn our faces away means we lower our character to an unacceptable level. And yes, I could be respectful toward anyone on the list, even though the names produce negative feelings. I could be respectful, not out of fear of retaliation by those people but because as a human being I have the choice of maintaining my character. There is a difference between being respectful toward someone, even though their behavior may not promote respect. And I am not talking off the top of my hat. There are some holding positions of authority in my workplace that have absolutely no right to respect, but I have a personal obligation to be respectful.

As for political figures, while I dislike some things about our last president and the current president, I would still salute and say "Sir." Always remember, "Integrity does the right thing even when no one is looking." I would extend that to include "...even when it doesn't look or feel right" and "even when others are not doing it."

Respect is an attitude. Respect defines your character and is used as a tool to measure the depth of your integrity. Your attitude certainly determines your altitude.

We should demonstrate respect by being honest, fair, polite, and caring.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Remember, someone is always watching you, especially children. Children learn more from what they see and are impressed upon what they hear. No matter who the audience is, we should always model respectful behaviors and avoid poor role models of respect like the bubonic plague.

I agree with Pam. I just looked up respect also to make sure my comment was valid. Common courtesy yes, but respect no. What he stood for, what he morally did, his purposes merit no respect. I think you meant it is necessary to show everyone common courtesy -- to be polite. In that sense I agree with you.

I believe I would treat each of these individuals with respect, although for some of them, unfortunately, it would be out of fear.

Respect must be earned, not demanded. Forcing false respect also creates a dangerous situation: When the cat's away, the mice will play.

However, behaving respectfully and humanely is necessary, not because the person deserves it but because you do. It is like a funeral: it is not as much for the benefit of the deceased but for the people who loved him.

Behaving in a respectful fashion can also get you listened to. James Dobson of Focus on the Family is respected because he is always smiling and respectful. Meanwhile the preacher who struts around screaming and picketing the funerals of gay people and even veterans does not have the respect even of the most radical right extremists. Yet their positions on gay rights are identical.

If you don't behave respectfully, you lower yourself to the level of the evil person.

If you don't have the respect of your coworkers, no one has your back when you need it.

Final thought: Torture is an extreme form of disrespect, both for yourself, those you represent, and the one being tortured.

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama was very careful not to disrespect John McCain. He talked about his viewpoints and gave him grace where he deserved it. Even now, he refuses to speak disrespectfully of the Bush administration. When asked if the Bush administration broke the law by authorizing torture, he said, "Waterboarding is torture. Torture is against national and international law. The previous administration authorized torture."