Revisiting the Truth

In an earlier post (September 24, 2010), I suggested that a way to move toward more civility in the public discourse is to take the time to check the facts. Once we check the facts, it's necessary to take another step and that is to insist (graciously) that those with whom we may agree philosophically tell the truth. It's not enough to know the truth for ourselves; we must hold candidates, office-holders, and media personalities accountable for their statements, insisting that public falsehoods and exaggerations be publically recanted with a public apology. It may help us grow toward greater civility if we make it clear to politicians that those who are cavalier with the truth will not receive our vote and we will "turn off" media personalities with a disregard for the facts.

Start Early

Now that the 2010 mid-term elections are history and you're either elated or dismayed, depending on your perspective, let me suggest that it's not too early to start planning ways to inject more civility into the 2012 presidential election year. Since the 2012 campaign will probably begin in just a day or two (if it hasn't already begun), the negative, attack ad machine is already getting cranked up. Most people profess to dislike the character-assassination, mud-slinging, half-truths, and shrill labeling of the attack ads. If that's the case, why are they becoming ever more prevalent and nasty? Answer...because they work. If we're serious about a more civil discourse in the political process, it's up to us to respond to this nastiness and here's how: When the time comes, write, e-mail, or call the campaigns and parties of those you support and insist on a civil, robust debate that focuses on issues and is committed to telling the whole truth. Notice I said "those you support", not those you oppose. Whatever one's political leaning and persuasion, it is time to call those with whom we may agree ideologically to account for the way in which they represent their and our positions.

Broadening the Categories

Quite often issues have far reaching implications that labels and slogans fail to capture. In fact, all too often, labels and slogans tend to make our "agenda" too narrow and lure us into a trap of smug comfortability with the rightness of our position and dismissiveness of anyone who differs with us at any point of the debate. When we take the time to think seriously about the implications of what we say we believe, we'll find that there are more serious ramifications than we first thought possible. Just one example - without violating my commitment to not put forth my own social and political views in this blog - "What does it mean, in terms of how I treat a person (any person), when I say that I am a Christ-follower?" What are the implications and ramifications of such an identification with Christ? That one question alone serves to broaden the categories.

Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing.

There's an old saying, "Half a cake is better than no cake at all". However, in the emotionally-charged arena of social and political discourse, we have slid into an "all-or-nothing" mentality where it insisted that one "buy the whole package", without any deviation from "the party line", of a particular agenda without stopping to consider that the truth of all social and political issues may very well be nuanced and certainly more complex than reduction to sloganeering would suggest. A good way toward more civility in our discussions would be to admit that we have succumbed to the disease of "hardening of the categories" and at least be willing to admit that those with whom we have disagreements have reasons why they hold their particular positions. A good beginning on the journey toward civility would be that of going to meet someone "halfway".

Avoiding the Labels

One of the surest ways to inhibit a robust dialogue on significant issues is to attach a "generalized" label of some kind to those with whom we disagree. If we can hang the tag of "liberal", "conservative", "tax and spend_____________", "big government", or __________________ (fill in the blank) on someone without taking the time to even understand the meaning of the terms, we've "won" the argument without having to listen to an explanation of their position. Genuine debate and discussion requires listening carefully to another person and considering the argument on its merits. If we drop the labels and start to listen, we're taking a great step in the direction of civility in the public discourse.

We have met the enemy...

One of the ways to tone down the rhetoric and engage in more civil discussion is to resist the temptation to set up an "us" vs. "them" scenario. In the "us" vs. "them" scenarios, "us" becomes the good guys and "them" are the bad guys with "good" and "bad" being seen in absolute, total terms. In other words, "we" (to change the terminology) can see only "good" in our positions while seeing only "bad" in "them". Not only does this attitude betrays a lack of understanding of the pervasive nature of sin (defined as "self-worship") that infects all of us, penetrating to every fiber of our being, but it sets up a "playing field" where no one will even listen to the "other side" because "they" have already been written off. If there is to be robust, civil discussion and debate about crucial issues, we need to resist the "us" vs. "them" mentality that ends conversations before they can even begin.

Take the time to check the facts

In a "15 second sound-bite" world, it's important to slow down and take some time to evaluate the factual accuracy of what comes our way. Just because a rumor "goes viral" via e-mail does not make it true. Just because a prominent figure says something on radio or TV does not make it true. Just because an organization with which we may agree makes a statement does not necessarily make it true. Jesus said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." Truth should be our first pursuit, even if it is uncomfortable for us or if it cuts across previously held views. There are a number of web sites devoted to "fact-checking". Find them and take some time to pursue the truth.

Another modest proposal...embrace the light.

It isn't enough to reject the shrill voices that sow anger and mistrust. There must be a replacement of the darkness with the light of those who take the time and care to frame issues in such a way as to promote honest and healthy dialogue and debate. Because of my policy in this blog of not "naming names", I will not give recommendations as to those voices in print and on the airways that do us all a great service by discussing the issues respectfully rather than making themselves the issues by attacking those who have differing views. Those voices of moderation and healthy debate are "out there". Look for them and give careful attention to both their tone and content. If we fill our minds with good things, we will not hunger for the bad.

A Modest Proposal: Just say 'no'

A starting point toward an atmosphere of more civil discussion is to refuse to feed our minds the vitriol of labeling, name-calling, and unfair generalization. We need to "unplug" from all who demean, vilify, and demonize fellow humans beings. We recognize those voices that pander to our prejudices and fears and if those voices are to give way in the public discourse to civil discussion, it will be up to us to "turn them off" and refuse to give them time and attention. It matters not whether we agree philosophically with those shrill voices; if civility is to be restored, it will start with a rejection of the voices that sow fear, mistrust, hate, and discord.

Yet another blog...

This blog is based on Proverbs 15:1..."A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." For some time, I've watched with alarm as the level of civil discussion in American society has become ever more uncivil, to the point where we have become a schismatic, fragmented society described as being embroiled in "culture wars". My purpose is simple: To encourage all who read these posts to reject angry rhetoric, listen to the point of hearing, and build bridges rather than walls. To that end, I'll be posting ideas and suggestions that hopefully will lead us into greater civility. After all..."civil" is a root of "civilization".

This blog is not intended as a presentation of my particular views on any issue, but rather is a call for reasoned and reasonable discussion and debate on religious, political, and social issues.

What I write represents only my thinking as a committed follower of Jesus Christ. The thoughts, ideas, and opinions are mine alone and in no way represent my church or employers.

Because too much of the (un)civil discourse in American life centers around personalities rather than respectful discussion of the issues, I will not mention names either approvingly or disapprovingly.

I'll be updating this blog periodically only when I feel that there is something of value to add that will help us move in the direction of civility in our discussions. I make no promises about a "schedule" of posting.

Hope you enjoy.