When I decided to explore the subject of civility two decades ago, I was especially concerned about the ways in which religious convictions seemed to be at the root of much of the mean-spiritedness in the world. There were growing tensions at the time -- soon to be vicious warfare -- between Muslims and Christians in Bosnia; Arabs and Jews in the Middle East; and Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.
Some of those polarizations no longer loom large. The Middle East is certainly still a mess, but things have cooled down considerably in Ireland and the Eastern Europe. Indeed, many of the worst incivilities are much closer to home for Americans these days.
When my book on the subject, Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World, appeared in 1992, I was interviewed frequently by journalists on the subject of civility. At first I was surprised by how often they wanted to talk, not about the "big" incivilities of tribal and international hostilities, but about more mundane displays of anger: road rage on California freeways and rudeness in the aisles of supermarkets. But they were onto something. These less global manifestations of incivility have increasingly become preoccupations for all of us. Kids in middle-class schools are driven to the point of suicide because of bullying by their peers. Campus gossip sites spread salacious stories about students who are identified by name. Bloggers sit daily at their keyboards to spew forth hatred. "Experts" shout at each other on our 24/7 cable news channels.
In recently revising my book, I still had to deal with the fact that religion continues to be a big part of the problem. Christians denominations are torn apart by angry debates over sexuality. Both sides in the ongoing culture wars engage in sloganeering. Religious extremists, on the left and the right, propagate their own conspiracy theories about their religious and irreligious enemies.
As the Lutheran scholar Martin Marty once observed, people these days who are civil often lack strong convictions, and people with strong religious convictions often are not very civil. What we need is convicted civility.
I made that line from Professor Marty the centerpiece of a public talk I once gave about civility on a university campus, and I suggested some ways in which that people of faith could work on the project. After my lecture, a representative of one of the evangelical campus groups came to the front of the lecture hall to talk with me. "I wish we could have heard what you had to say tonight a couple of months ago," he said. He explained that his group had gotten into a acrimonious public exchange with a gay-lesbian organization on campus. The evangelical group had run an ad in the campus newspaper explaining what they took to be the Bible's objections to same-sex intimacy, and the gay-lesbian group had responded with an ad angrily denouncing the evangelicals. The whole thing was kept going in the letters column in the campus paper. "It has really gotten out of hand," the evangelical said. "Any thoughts about what we should have done differently?"
At the very least, I said, his folks might have talked with the gay-lesbian leadership privately before going public with their views. "You could have sent them a copy of the ad you planned to run, and asked them whether there was anything in it that they found abusive. And you could have invited them to have lunch with you to talk about the topic before going public with your views."
His response, expressed in a genuinely regretful tone: "I wish we would have done that!"
A month later he wrote me a letter. "After you and I talked," he said, "we contacted the gay-lesbian leaders. We told them that we are very sorry we had not met with them privately before publishing our ad. And we asked them if we could meet over lunch, and they accepted."
The encounter had started out badly, he reported. The gays and lesbians were very angry. But at one point one of them told about some terrible experiences she had as a teenager in in an evangelical church. "We were very moved by her story," he said, "and we told her so." Some tears were shed on both sides. "We agreed not only to disagree, but to keep meeting on a regular basis. It was a tough conversation, but we evangelicals were so glad we reached out. It sure beats angry public name-calling."
Not a bad place to start at cultivating convicted civility. Agreeing to talk to each other without the glare of a public spotlight. And we conservative religious types paying for the food!
David Bromwich: Cordoba House and Religious Freedom
Civility in America - Oprah.com
Civility, Beliefs and America's Toxic Political Scene | The ...
Op-Ed: America needs a civility campaign | JTA - Jewish & Israel News
What America needs is a good civility committee - washingtonpost.com
'Civility May Not Be Sexy' | Christianity Today | A Magazine of ...
Case for Civility, The by Os Guinness
Before You Attend Jon Stewart's Rally, Read This from James Calvin ...
I respect the right of any one to practice and believe the religion of their choice or believe what they want. However, that doesn't limit my rights to mock their behaviour as primitive, superstitious and ignorant. Tolerant does not mean silent.
Everyone has a right to his beliefs. No one has a right to unchallenged beliefs.
However, I think we can show our disrespect in a manner that is, well, civilized. We can be gentlemen and ladies about it. Even Sam Harris is calm and polite while passionately debating religion. Richard Dawkins interviews religious nuts largely with composure and manners and acknowledges the acceptance of evolution by various religious leaders and other theists. Our open disrespect of superstition should not preclude a civil discourse with the religious.
Note that I do suspect many who want more "civility" want Dawkins to keep his "strident" opinions to himself and us atheists to stop challenging religion. And some find the lunch time meetings in the article an accomplishment in and of itself because it increased civility. I'm sorry, I'm just not interested in sitting around sharing my feelings and "moving" Evangelicals. No, I want to discuss the issues. I want the Evangelicals to concede their position or present a better defense of it. Civility should about discussing the issues with some manners, not having a discourse that makes us feel warm and fuzzy.
If you think you can accomplish more through kindness, I wouldn't discourage that either, but I don't think we should feel limited to it.
One of the main problems in "Civil Discourse" here on HuffPo is that some of us bring 'shop talk' or use ClubSpeak to communicate. If I talk blacksmithese to a group of birders there will be no communication. It may be civil but they won't undrstsand.
If the conversation is about Religious scripture or parables,then by all means quote scripture and use parables and analogys.
If we are discussing 'Rudeness' it does no good explain to a nonreligious person with scripture or parables . I get the feeling people are talking to me in ChruchSpeak and I answer in ZenSpeak.
We are not communicating.
It is like shouting at someone who doesn't understand your language.
Sometime we find we are not all that far from other people here just by asking for an explanation in our common language. I'm bad about using metaphores and parables, Call me on it.
I'll do the same.
Sadly, I think much of the conversation could do without the __Speak. But I also get the feeling like the Speak stuff is a smokescreen, to cover up for ideas that really don't make sense. Speak plainly and everyone would see this, talk in terms of scripture or esoteric nonsense then it sounds official and impenetrable.
I think there are larger problems with the discourse as well, though this is a good one (faved by the way). For example people who insist we be more civil will condemning one group in the discussion as intolerant in a manner that itself is intolerant. And there are obviously of course many others.
Civility requires respecting others as equal. Not as people who simply have no right to fail to obey you.
Whatever it means to Christians now, the dude *did* proclaim himself a monarch, as well as one having spiritual authority over the Judaean provincial theocracy.
Crucifixion, while obviously revoltingly-cruel to any modern sensibility, was also a metaphor: rebels and would-be tyrants were seen as trying to place themselves above the social order, thus suspended between Earth and sky. (I'm certainly not going to argue for the morality of crucifying the leaders of slave revolts, but there *is* the simple fact that such disorder could and was seen to potentially destroy cities full of people as well as landscapes. From a certain point of view, it'd seem that Pontius Pilate 'washed his hands' of the matter in the story because he recognized that Jesus represented just some kind of common street prophet, ...recognized perhaps that the 'king of the Jews' bit was metaphor or otherwise not to be taken seriously, whereas to the Sanhedrin he was a direct threat to their power as well as, therefore, their ability to retain a measure of autonomy within the Empire. (And from their literalistic point of view, here's a guy claiming to be the heir to the one and only rightful kingship. A real threat. Whereas to a Roman governor's point of view, 'Big whoop, half the patricians claim to be descended of Aeneas or something.')
It seems to me that that whole story is *rife* with failures of civil dialogue.
Christ came along, He was King Of Kings. But was taken seriously and why mocked on the cross with the sign over his Head, King of the Jew. Which was placed there, so no one else dare, question my authority, look at your king now. I am King Caesar. Let your King save you now.
How the Roman Empire, also controlled their citizens, was through the temple? Instilling fear, twisting the word of God. Caesar placed his own priest there also. Fear mongering, to cause a divided among all, using relgion was a great way and a great way to make lots of tax dollars? Why selling wares on the temple porch, why had to purchase a dove, give ones live stock, or give land, sins would be forgiven, or not forgiven, if sacrifice not offered. No, one can buy, their way into heaven. Why Christ also in anger, flips over the money table. Christ knew and fear not them or Government, for Christ knew both their ends. Did they both not fall?
Christ knew what was going on behind closed doors with church and government $$$ My fathers house is a house of prayer not a den of thieves. Christ also knew the Empire, stat quo which ruled by military power, oppressing over their own people, by taxes, their wars, which made Caesar rich, etc Greed? Christ knew the unrighteous and ungodly men, Christ knew greed , unrighteous laws, unjust laws, defrauds their own citizens, greed creates poverty, causes more innocent sufferings and deaths. More then all wars put together, since the beginning of time.
Remember Satan has a Kingdom, Satan offered Christ all Kingdoms on earth, if Christ would bow to him, worship him. Christ chose to remain poor. Satan has he not a great disguise, does not want us to know He exist. Out to destroy. Steal souls, greed steals I ask many of souls?
What one personally chooses for himself or her self, is THEIR God given right Free Will to do so. One is also judging, stealing God's WILL & DESIRE, who gave all HE created FREE WILL, God forces NO ONE, to LOVE him, that is not Love. God said You take that kind of Love, I WILL not accept, that is God's right, NOT YOUR RIGHT either. Whom God chooses to forgive is NOT your right either. For all will be judged.
For one to steal others rights, free will, to choose for themselves, is also going against the very WILL& Desire of God himself, who choose to give Free Will to all. Does one not think, if God gave us HIS Beginning of all creation, did God not also give us HIS end also? God knew all sins before they came to be sin. God said I knew YOU before I placed YOU in your mothers womb. God said Silence before ME>
Are you saying I have the 'right ' not to believe in any God Only because 'your God and you' grant me this right ?
The exact cause in what got Christ crucified, was Christ chose, for himself, who HE was going to serve, God first God's Government Laws first, not mans laws. God grants us this RIGHT to all his creation, their free will to chose to accept as truth or not. Not even God forces HIS own Will & Desire upon us. IF God did, God could wipe us all out in an instant. Yes you also have the right not to believe in any God, that is your choice. But not till all the gentles are in, not till all have heard. Then all have no excuse, we chose where we want to go, Heaven or Hell, we condem ourselves. God does not not to lose one soul, he dearly loves all. Pray for all who do not believe, far better if we do, Christ said. Leave the rest in God's Hands to do the rest.
' When they talk of peace they really aren't talking about peace. They are really asking for a time out until they can regroup ,plot a new strategy and then attack us again.'
Go to any small town council meeting in the South (I've no experiance in the "North") Don't say the pledge of allegiance with the "under god", or stand for the Government/Christian prayer.
You will get a whole new perspective of "Civil Discourse"
Remember was religion, not also using the word of God, by twisting and spinning the word, to instill fear mongering of Christ, someone to be feared? Was Christ not also falsely accused , called all kinds of horrible names, etc, of not be a Believer (like what we hear today, he is not a Christian?) I love all and pray for all. For all have been dearly loved. I ask did Christ come to die for land? or sinners? God said. The earth is my foot stool. right?
Mystery
Christ said. Peace I Give you, My Peace, I WILL ( a will is an inheritance, of wealth after one dies) to you, not has the world gives, do I give you MY PEACE. A peace the world does not understand.
Christ -greatest wealth, treasure, riches, was his rest, "Christ Peace", God Kingdom there is peace, no labor, wars, hungry, suffering, sorrows, all is there, given served to all. Christ made us all RIGHTEOUS to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, for all who accept his Peace, gift making us all RIGHTEOUS, for Christ paid in full, our debt of ALL our crimes of sins. Thus making us all RIGHTEOUS to enter HIS PEACE. treasure, wealth. For Peace keeps what Grace gives. PEACE is found where Righteousness Lives, the Kingdom of God.
Specifically, that "we're all sinners" that "the only real morality is to be found in the Bible" and that "these are the end-times and human civilization will be coming to an end shortly when Jesus returns to earth..." etc.
I'm always curious why Christians feel entitled to express these rather offensive notions to me, with no sense of modesty and no sense of social hesitation.
I'm already familiar with the explanation that they are simply trying to "save me" from the lake of fire etc. but what about the fact that I've already concluded for myself, after extensive study of the relevant materials, that such a place doesn't exist?
There are some good things that can be learned from Christianity once you dismiss the whole divinity thing. I like Jesus as a radical pacifist trying to get humans not to kill each other.
I wish more Christians would consider his views on war and religious oppression. He wasn't keen on either.
-Unaffiliated
It's about control.
That's me.
If I were to identify a weakness with it; I would say "confusion". People are confused by civility and mistake it for weakness and a lack of conviction.
President Obama is maligned by his own party for what they see as a lack of conviction, rather than what I see, a token of civility. My estimation of Obama has improved remarkably in the past few weeks as he has taken the change of tide with remarkably good grace.
Premature declarations of conviction shut the door on conversation. I feel that some convictions ought to be like the cards you never show at a gaming table, they are your *anchor* and the less you invite challenge on your deepest convictions, the less likely you end up shutting the door.
Conviction should come in layers, with very little that is anchored in concrete, so to speak, and much that is amenable to change if proof or circumstances demand change.
Obama doesn't show civility. (In fact, he is uncivil towards the Republicans in a subtle way regularly.) Obama merely has shown a complete inability to provide clear and serious leadership.
What got Christ crucified also, was His Free Will, choice, was rejected by others, their choices made, were forced upon Christ.
Gay rights are not -your rights- being taken away. One chooses for themselves, in their own personal life, it is there GOD given FREE WILL, RIGHT, to do so.
Your Free Will, is not their Free Will, To argue over, or force your free will, choices made, to be forced upon them. To do so, one is a thief, STEALING, others, God given Free Will, a gift, given FREELY to all human beings. One is also judging stealing from God, HIS-very WILL & DESIRE- to give free will to all that HE has created. Going against the very Will of God himself. Is sin, dibedience, judging God also. shame
Does on not think God knew all before all came, if God gives us His beginning, does God not also give us HIS END also?
Those with strong religious convictions who lack civility are basically reacting out of fear - fear of death and divine punishment. People who are confident about their ideas don't avoid dissenting information and certainly don't go running around condemning others to everlasting torture.
Fear yes, not so sure about the divine punishment part. I think it is bully behavior and a need to dominate potential enemies. Such persons find ANY platform or hill upon which he can be king of that hill. For some it will be religion; but not the kind that has first-hand knowledge of God, rather, this will be the kind heavily into church government, ritual, orders and so on.