Although it seems obvious passing along negative things about people has to be part of public discourse, I find myself pausing at yesterday's post, thinking on the post from the day before.
Passing along the negative news about Huntsman definitely hurts him. If I truly loved him, would I pass something that hurts another person?
Perhaps a few checks are in order before negativity is passed along, even when the negativity has become widely disseminated as news. One, Should the information impact whether my listener will vote for the person being discussed? If not, I have no need to pass the information along. In the case of Huntsman, I have to decide whether his level of belief in the Church is a matter that should impact whether people vote for him. I believe a person should be elected on the merits of what they stand for, regardless of their church. I have voted against those of my faith. But I do believe religion should be a factor, though not the leading one.
Two . . . I'll come back to this post tonight. 'Tis time to go to work.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Repeating Negative Thoughts, Is That Civility?
I'm still a thinking on it, but my thinking at the moment is I should allow myself some room in what ill information I pass along about others.
If a person didn't say anything negative about another person, he could hardly so much as discuss current affairs. Could he speak much of the Egyptian unrest without speaking of Hosni Mubarak and why so many Egyptians do not like him?
Could he speak of immigration and undocumented residents without something negative about someone being said?
The issue, then, is where to draw the line. What of news articles suggesting Jon Huntsman Jr. is not tied to his religion strongly? I obviously have decided that, too, is within the perimeters of what can be passed along, or I wouldn't be mentioning it at this time. Huntsman has been quoted as saying his credentials in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are soft, and he has been quoted as saying, "I can't say I'm overly religious."
Salacious gossip? Perhaps. But I do agree it belongs within civil public discourse. One could argue that that is because he is a public figure, one who could again run for office, and therefore the public has the right to know.
Is that why? Or would we say neighbors have the right to know the level of his testimony, even if he were not a government official, and being touted as a presidential candidate? I don't know that I have to come to a conclusion on that, as my reflections are primarily on public discourse, but most would surely agree we have less right, less need, to pass along salacious gossip when it is about a private individual, maybe no need to pass it along, at all.
If a person didn't say anything negative about another person, he could hardly so much as discuss current affairs. Could he speak much of the Egyptian unrest without speaking of Hosni Mubarak and why so many Egyptians do not like him?
Could he speak of immigration and undocumented residents without something negative about someone being said?
The issue, then, is where to draw the line. What of news articles suggesting Jon Huntsman Jr. is not tied to his religion strongly? I obviously have decided that, too, is within the perimeters of what can be passed along, or I wouldn't be mentioning it at this time. Huntsman has been quoted as saying his credentials in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are soft, and he has been quoted as saying, "I can't say I'm overly religious."
Salacious gossip? Perhaps. But I do agree it belongs within civil public discourse. One could argue that that is because he is a public figure, one who could again run for office, and therefore the public has the right to know.
Is that why? Or would we say neighbors have the right to know the level of his testimony, even if he were not a government official, and being touted as a presidential candidate? I don't know that I have to come to a conclusion on that, as my reflections are primarily on public discourse, but most would surely agree we have less right, less need, to pass along salacious gossip when it is about a private individual, maybe no need to pass it along, at all.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Scriptures Offer the Real Key to Civility
Would it be asking too much for those in the public arena to love each other?
I mean really love each other, candidates loving their opponents, backers of abortion loving opponents of abortion, Tea Partiests loving Obama-ites.
Hey, "What the world needs now, is love, sweet love. It's the only thing, that there's just too little of." (old Carpenters' song)
I have been studying and reflecting on what civility is this past week, and thought to save this post for today, as it is Sunday. This post, though, offers the best advice of all for how to be civil. For, we can make all the lists we like of what and what not to do, but the best way to be civil is to let it come from the heart. Sincerely and honestly love all men and you won't need the rules, for civility will come naturally. If you really love someone, you will treat them right.
"All you need is love. Love. Love is all you need." (old Beatles' song)
"For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh." (Matthew 12:34)
Learning rules and guidelines -- I will continue to do so -- is good. But, I know they will not serve me as well, not bind me to being civil, as much as will just developing an attitude of love for all men. "Charity never faileth." (I Corinthians 13:8)
The scripture of Utah's largest religion adds to that. "Wherefore cleave unto charity," says Moroni 7:46, "which is the greatest of all." (And, indeed, charity -- love -- is the greatest key to civility.) "For all things must fail --" (even as all the lists of dos and don'ts will fail) "But charity . . . endureth."
"A good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit. . . A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good. . . . for of the abundance of his heart, his mouth speaketh." (Luke 6:43-45)
I mean really love each other, candidates loving their opponents, backers of abortion loving opponents of abortion, Tea Partiests loving Obama-ites.
Hey, "What the world needs now, is love, sweet love. It's the only thing, that there's just too little of." (old Carpenters' song)
I have been studying and reflecting on what civility is this past week, and thought to save this post for today, as it is Sunday. This post, though, offers the best advice of all for how to be civil. For, we can make all the lists we like of what and what not to do, but the best way to be civil is to let it come from the heart. Sincerely and honestly love all men and you won't need the rules, for civility will come naturally. If you really love someone, you will treat them right.
"All you need is love. Love. Love is all you need." (old Beatles' song)
"For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh." (Matthew 12:34)
Learning rules and guidelines -- I will continue to do so -- is good. But, I know they will not serve me as well, not bind me to being civil, as much as will just developing an attitude of love for all men. "Charity never faileth." (I Corinthians 13:8)
The scripture of Utah's largest religion adds to that. "Wherefore cleave unto charity," says Moroni 7:46, "which is the greatest of all." (And, indeed, charity -- love -- is the greatest key to civility.) "For all things must fail --" (even as all the lists of dos and don'ts will fail) "But charity . . . endureth."
"A good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit. . . A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good. . . . for of the abundance of his heart, his mouth speaketh." (Luke 6:43-45)
Saturday, February 5, 2011
A Gentle Answer Turneth Away Wrath
'Tis not Sunday, and I thought to offer a scriptural take on civility come Sunday, but how about I jump a day early?
More thought on yesterday's post. While offering no correction would be a polite course if someone got Gabrielle Giffords' name wrong and called her Gabrielle Griffins, that does not mean a polite correction would be wrong.
But it must be polite.
"The Arizona representative's last name is Giffords, not Griffins." A simple statement such as that will be enough, then letting it go and moving on. What will matter, is the tone with which the correction is delivered. Speak your words in an apologetic tone. Sound and be forgiving. Do no let harshness enter your voice, nor malice, nor haughtiness. Do not be condescending.
Be meek.
As I thought on this, it occurred to me this is a good rule anytime a correction is offered, whether it be for something inconsequential, or for something substantive to the debate.
And, so it is that the scripture (Proverbs 15:1) offers this advice to those in the political arena: "A Soft Answer Turneth Away Wrath." I think perhaps to change one word, although both work, and offer the advice as, "A gentle answer turneth away wrath."
More thought on yesterday's post. While offering no correction would be a polite course if someone got Gabrielle Giffords' name wrong and called her Gabrielle Griffins, that does not mean a polite correction would be wrong.
But it must be polite.
"The Arizona representative's last name is Giffords, not Griffins." A simple statement such as that will be enough, then letting it go and moving on. What will matter, is the tone with which the correction is delivered. Speak your words in an apologetic tone. Sound and be forgiving. Do no let harshness enter your voice, nor malice, nor haughtiness. Do not be condescending.
Be meek.
As I thought on this, it occurred to me this is a good rule anytime a correction is offered, whether it be for something inconsequential, or for something substantive to the debate.
And, so it is that the scripture (Proverbs 15:1) offers this advice to those in the political arena: "A Soft Answer Turneth Away Wrath." I think perhaps to change one word, although both work, and offer the advice as, "A gentle answer turneth away wrath."
Friday, February 4, 2011
Not Every Mistake Calls for Correction
Call Gabrielle Giffords, Gabrielle Griffins, and you could be in for a lashing. In the court of debate, any advantage to be found is often relished.
The person with a civil tongue, though, well might not even correct such an error.
Other errors demand correction.
Take the immigration issue. Some have suggested Utah implement a program allowing the immigrants to work here. No, that won't work, as federal authorization for work is required under 8 USC 1324a, comes the reply. Well, comes the counter response, we will get a federal waiver that allows those from other lands to work here.
No such waiver covers such work, comes the reply.
Sometimes, the corrections go back and forth, one correcting the other, and the other correcting the person who corrected him/her. In the example above, if a person were to find a waiver that applied to immigration, they would offer that as a correction.
So, the civil person considers which errors are in need of correction, and which are not. The civil person does not simply look for something to make the other person look bad.
The person with a civil tongue, though, well might not even correct such an error.
Other errors demand correction.
Take the immigration issue. Some have suggested Utah implement a program allowing the immigrants to work here. No, that won't work, as federal authorization for work is required under 8 USC 1324a, comes the reply. Well, comes the counter response, we will get a federal waiver that allows those from other lands to work here.
No such waiver covers such work, comes the reply.
Sometimes, the corrections go back and forth, one correcting the other, and the other correcting the person who corrected him/her. In the example above, if a person were to find a waiver that applied to immigration, they would offer that as a correction.
So, the civil person considers which errors are in need of correction, and which are not. The civil person does not simply look for something to make the other person look bad.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Reflections on Civility, Day 4
Laughing at others is impolite. What is the phrase, "Were not laughing at you; we're laughing with you"? If you cannot say you are laughing with them, then you are probably laughing at them. And, if you say you are laughing with them, double-check your feelings, lest you really be justifying yourself and actually be laughing at them.
Yes, sometimes, the things we do are funny and it makes others laugh. Othertimes, laughing is no more than a outward expression of a mocking feeling toward another.
What of hard laughter, of loud laugher? Not all laughter comes from the same heart. There is joyful laughter, hearty laughter, and . . . loud (sometimes even angry) laughter. I pictured this form of laughter in my mind and noticed I don't hear it coming from those I admire most, not from people I consider honest-of-heart, caring individuals.
So, consider the sound of your own laughter. Joyful laughter is good. Tickled-pink laughter is good. Great-relief laughter is good. But there is a laughter that bears the banner of hate. Listen to the tone, and avoid the hard-edged laughter.
Yes, sometimes, the things we do are funny and it makes others laugh. Othertimes, laughing is no more than a outward expression of a mocking feeling toward another.
What of hard laughter, of loud laugher? Not all laughter comes from the same heart. There is joyful laughter, hearty laughter, and . . . loud (sometimes even angry) laughter. I pictured this form of laughter in my mind and noticed I don't hear it coming from those I admire most, not from people I consider honest-of-heart, caring individuals.
So, consider the sound of your own laughter. Joyful laughter is good. Tickled-pink laughter is good. Great-relief laughter is good. But there is a laughter that bears the banner of hate. Listen to the tone, and avoid the hard-edged laughter.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Studies in Civility, Page Three
Today, I was biting my lip as I and a friend discussed a public figure.
Is it civil to pass along information, albeit perhaps true information, when it reflects negatively upon someone?
Remember what Thumper learned from his dad: "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all."
What about if it is true? And what about if the person you're talking about might not even mind? Or, are those just two of the ways for justifying a little gossip?
I did share the information with my friend, deciding it had been in the newspaper. But, I later had this thought: Newspapers should publish such information, but that doesn't mean I should be quick to pass it along. Newspapers have an obligation to provide news about public figures, so they should. But, do I have such an obligation? What if the information I have is about an elected official, and it affects whether you support the person? Don't I have an obligation to pass it on, so you can make a better, more-informed decision?
I'm still considering that, as I head for bed.
Is it civil to pass along information, albeit perhaps true information, when it reflects negatively upon someone?
Remember what Thumper learned from his dad: "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all."
What about if it is true? And what about if the person you're talking about might not even mind? Or, are those just two of the ways for justifying a little gossip?
I did share the information with my friend, deciding it had been in the newspaper. But, I later had this thought: Newspapers should publish such information, but that doesn't mean I should be quick to pass it along. Newspapers have an obligation to provide news about public figures, so they should. But, do I have such an obligation? What if the information I have is about an elected official, and it affects whether you support the person? Don't I have an obligation to pass it on, so you can make a better, more-informed decision?
I'm still considering that, as I head for bed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)