All this talk about civility is beginning to make me uncomfortable. Civility refers to courteous and polite behavior. But courteous and polite behavior is not, in and of itself, a religious value. At times, it is to be subordinated to other, more important values.
When instructing the prophet Isaiah about how he is to confront those who oppress others, God's instructions are as follows: "Cry with full throat, without restraint; raise your voice like a ram's horn!" (Isaiah 58:1). There is no suggestion here that Isaiah should be civil. What is called for is exactly the opposite: casting civility aside and speaking out with passion, power, and "without restraint" against those who cause or ignore suffering.
Like everyone else in America, I was appalled by the shooting in Arizona, and the religious organization that I serve condemned those who use ugly and violent rhetoric to create an atmosphere of hatred. But in the aftermath of this terrible incident, it seems to me that the enduring emphasis on civility is misplaced. It has become an end unto itself, distorting the norms of democratic debate and distracting us from matters of more fundamental consequence.
In the year ahead, for example, America will continue the discussion on whether all of our citizens are to be granted, as a matter of right, access to a reasonable level of health care. The leading voices of talk radio will not be constrained by considerations of civility; neither will those who remain indifferent to the plight of the uninsured or whose concern is the protection of privilege. When the case is made for assuring that health insurance is extended to every American, I want it to be made with conviction and "without restraint."
Such is the American way. Our political system is constructed on the assumption that it will involve an intense exchange of political views. And as a religious liberal, I attach special importance to impassioned debate. Precisely because I am a religious liberal, I know that I am inclined -- as are others who share my religious outlook -- to avoid absolutes, to reject fundamentalism in all its forms, to be open to subtlety and nuance and to see the other side of issues. These are generally good things, but they can also mean that when I advocate for what I believe, I do so in a tepid way. The challenge for religious liberals is to argue passionately for their beliefs, even as they recognize that they might not always be right. It is to be certain, but not about everything. It is to champion their values with conviction, even as they know that good people may have conflicting values on the same matter.
I do not suggest, of course, that "anything goes." Even if civility alone is not a supreme value, other limitations are suggested in our religious tradition. It states in Leviticus 19:17 that "you shall surely rebuke your neighbor." This passage and others give rise to an extended rabbinic discussion on the nature of disparaging speech (lashon ha-ra). While affirming the necessity of rebuke, the rabbis declare that personal attacks are always forbidden, even when these attacks may be objectively true. This is a valuable insight. As we give full-throated expression to the values that we cherish, we should argue for principle and avoid personal attack. As we articulate our beliefs with conviction and intensity, we should treat our opponents with respect and as children of God. And we must never, ever incite others to violence.
Still, as others fight for their view of justice, we must fight for our own -- with, I suggest, a little less civility and a lot more passion.
Rev. Dr. Janet Edwards: Meeting the Extremist Challenge by Obeying the Unenforceable
Civility in discourse on display at Koch protest
Fenton Johnson | Nurturing civility: We are all in this together
I think the author confuses civility and passion. One can be passionate about something without stooping to name calling and character assassination. That's what the civility argument is really about -- not passion.
Get an passionate as you like, but don't call the other guy a Nazi or the devil. It is not true. Unless he actually is a Nazi.
Give as strong a case as you can against Health Care Reform, but don't claim, as Sen Grassley did, that it will "Pull the plug on Grandma". That is a lie, and should not be tolerated.
Don't call someone a "Socialist" like it is the worst thing in the world, if you or your parents receive Medicare or Social Security, or get government health care, etc. It is being dishonest.
If we removed the lying, and didn't allow others to get away with lying, that would go a great distance towards a better discussion.
It's ironic that Rabbi Yoffie actually gives a much better definition of civility: "As we give full-throated expression to the values that we cherish, we should argue for principle and avoid personal attack. As we articulate our beliefs with conviction and intensity, we should treat our opponents with respect and as children of God. And we must never, ever incite others to violence."
You state the facts in a forceful and clear and unambiguous way. To their face. Nose to nose.
#ItIsNOTRocketScience #ItIsNOTPoliticallyCorrect #SmokeEmIfUGotEm
There's the key, isn't it. You state the FACTS. One doesn't call people Nazis or Maxists or say they hate America.
It depends on how you define civility. Yeshua certainly did not do anything wrong.
We need discussion. We need to break out of conformity to the darkness that the world imposes on us.
However, I am rather tired myself of people putting down the fundamental teaching of the Scriptures.
The issue is not civility, it is intellectual honesty. If one is intellectually honest, then they admit that anything and everything they believe could be wrong. If one is intellectually honest, they respect those that disagree with them because they understand that they may know more.
When the Church resisted moving to a sun centered solar system, even after they were shown the facts made clear by the telescope, they were being intellectually dishonest.
You are correct we need discussion. However, if the participants of that discussion only want to teach and not to learn, than the discussion is useless. The intellectually honest goal of discussion is to test current knowledge and discover new knowledge. However, if the goal of the discussion is simply to try to make the others in the discussion see your points, then that is not a discussion, it is a lecture.
We can be passionate and have righteous anger over things that we think are morally wrong especially if it spurs us to do something to make things better. But it can all be done in a civil, noncombative way.