Support is growing for the idea of bipartisan seating at the upcoming State of the Union address on January 25. The idea proposed by Third Way, a moderate Democratic think-tank, could end the 200-year-old tradition of showcasing our political divide by cheers or jeers from either side of the aisle.
A Republican-Democrat-Republican-Democrat seating chart in no way glosses over genuine differences of opinion, nor does it guarantee we won't see another episode of shouting "You lie!" during the speech, as South Carolina representative Joe Wilson did in 2009. But does that make the proposal unhelpful?
In kindergarten, teachers make children apologize after a classroom brawl over building blocks or toy trucks. Are the kids really sorry? Does the apology end all future brawls? No.
Yet the teachers do it because they know that civility begins somewhere, even if that somewhere is two five-year olds glaring at each other and muttering, "I'm sorry."
Walking the path deepens the tracks, but the path doesn't exist until someone first walks it.
Civility begins with breaking old patterns, even the simplest ones. What if those that represent us could take one night off from confirming what we already know -- that they do not agree? What if they could offer one gesture of the open hand to their neighbors on the other side of the aisle?
Better yet, since most members of the U.S. Congress like to be known as God-loving (or God-fearing, depending on your tradition) people, what if they thought of this in terms of the Golden Rule?
Jesus said, "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Luke 6:31). This same rule appears in various forms in other religions, and is commonly appealed to today by secular humanists. It is a rule we all (theoretically) could get behind. How would the world change if we began each interaction with our neighbors by asking the question, "Is this how I want to be treated?"
All it takes to become better neighbors is to ask this world-recognized and essentially self-centered question. Surely we can do that.
This question does not eliminate healthy debates or passionate conversations; it simply helps to humanize others. Taking this step forward, however, requires a will. Robert Frost said that "good fences make good neighbors"; but he also said, "something there is that doesn't love a wall." What if the symbolic wall, or aisle in this case, gets in the way of what should be the standard for civility?
As an instructor in the field of religion, I know this: when persons of other faiths sit together to ask each other questions, with only the intent of understanding one-another rather than proselytizing or defeating the other, they learn that the other person they demonized is not as bad as they thought. They learn something about themselves, about how easy it is to paint an ugly picture of someone else. They learn that despite their differences -- no matter how big they may be -- they can work together for their communities, because, after all, that is something they share.
This is the lesson personified in Egypt recently when Coptic Christians, in churches receiving bomb threats, were protected by their Muslim neighbors during Christmas services. This unexpected and admirable behavior sent a message.
On the other hand, I've been present when religious leaders, congregating with like-minded souls, have turned to ugly conversation in which "the others" outside of their camps were objects of suspicion. In other words, groupthink settles in and reasonable conversation gets locked out of the room. This is where a runaway, heightened rhetoric comes in to play, a tool that both sides of the aisle find useful when so-called rational arguments remain unconvincing. It galvanizes, but at a cost.
Do we want our country to be known for this? I don't.
The Golden Rule is the first step toward a better culture of words. Perhaps this small gesture of sitting down next to one's neighbor can become another great American symbol of unity to cherish. It would be wonderful if this change began in Congress.
Follow Brandon G. Withrow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bwithrow
State of the Union address - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address | The White ...
Obama, Sputnik, and the State of the Union - Newsweek
Chuck Schumer And Tom Coburn Sitting Together At State Of The Union 2011
Udall says seating plan at State of the Union Address has support
State of the Union: Obama Faces New Challenges in Reforming Education
Here is food for thought. Most well established churches do receive a,( freebie ), from the IRS via tax relief. Indeed, the government determines to what extent pastors, etc; will commit, in order to keep cash on hand,( banking.
Obviously, tax monies paid into IRS are raided by anyone who ressurects a god from amidst many,
totem too.. These gods should be sorted out and
given identification on W2 forms.This is honesty.
Actually, everyone is taxed to a hound’s tooth.
Millions of hard working citizens are bled. Why are their tax monies looted for any church; if these people pay no homage to established kingdoms? Isnt’this a legalized combination of church and state. Only the ignorant and super ignorant would view this in any other manner.
Searching for thousands of years asserts that
any and all established systems in worshiping
allied the various dominating ruling classes, as some god or gods are well heeled by the state. Incidentally, Socratese was slain because he too,like hogorina, questions tax monies used to fatten clergymen of questionable principles.
Socrates was a genuine democrat, far from a pseudo republican in his day. Yet, he questioned
the state’s method in allying with strange totem
pole upstarts, from raiding the state’s treasury, many do in America, because citizens are deprived and looted of their wealth. The Constitution implies separation of church and state ! Why pay homadge?
Especially these days.
However, please don't try to give the mythical Jesus character credit for inventing "The golden rule". We all know that it far predates christianity, so let's not try to smother this in christianity and Jesus.
In my original version, I actually had "before and after Jesus," or something like that, to make that point. However, I felt that was covered in the current wording and was redundant.
So, I don't believe Jesus was the first to say this, however, he is the one figure that most American politicians attach themselves to, so given that (and with or without my view of Jesus or whether he is mythical as you have concluded), it made sense to quote him rather than a litany of others for the sake of clear writing.
Also, this is the religion section, so Jesus might appear occasionally. :)
I wish I could remember who first postulated the idea (tough when you get old and the mind goes down the tubes) but it's a good one.
His suggestion was that everyone should have to publicly state what they most admired about the person they most disagreed with. Possibly a childish exercise, but one that would certainly be entertaining to watch, and might even make our elected representatives more thoughtful.
I think honest disagreement is healthy, I just wonder how much of our political disagreement is really honest.