All posts tagged civility
I'm not always wearing my full habit...
The least that any governor owes any president is respect.
It’s more than that. The least any PERSON owes any other person is respect.
Imagine what Republicans would have said if what occured at the Mesa airport between Gov. Jan Brewer and President Barack Obama had taken place between Gov. Janet Napolitano and President George W. Bush.
Can you imagine the explosions of rhetoric from our U.S. Senators and our Republicans in the House if there was a photograph of Napolitano wagging a finger at Bush?
The condemnation would have been overwhelming.
And justified.
The governor wasn’t at the airport greeting the president on behalf of herself. She was there representing ALL of us. Right, left and middle. Young and old. Men and women.
A simple “Welcome to Arizona, let me know if there’s anything we can do for you,” would have sufficed.
A lecture, an argument, a confrontation of any kind shows disrespect for the office. Not just for the person who holds it.
The governor should be embarrassed.
We all might have different views on politics. But we know good manners, and bad ones, when we see them.
Arizona Republic columnist EJ MONTINI, regarding governor Jan Brewer’s disgraceful, impolitic behavior to the President yesterday.
(via inothernews)
Yep.
Gottdambit THIS.
I’m happy this newspaper is taking their governor to task.
She owes not just President Obama a personal apology, but she owes the White House an apology and the People of Arizona one as well, for embarrassing them like that (via str8nochaser)
Dear Jan Brewer,
Your mother must be so proud.
Praying for your immortal soul,
Undercover Nun
(via golden-notebook)
Sometimes, simple civility entails shutting your damn mouth.
Quotation of the Day from somebody I have never met and don’t know. He left this comment in a discussion on Facebook, and I agree with him one hundred percent.
Civility is a Christian value. It’s part of loving everybody.
ilovecharts: How to Have a Rational Discussion
Some rules got left out.
- Do not commit logical fallacies.
- Do not descend into ad hominem attack.
- Remember that the discussion is not about you; the discussion is about ideas. Don’t take it personally.
What It’s Like to Work for Donald Rumsfeld, from Alexis Madrigal of The Atlantic
This image is a message (probably an email) that Rumsfeld sent to then Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith on April 7, 2003. You can read it in all its 56-word glory. Here’s the text of the memo:
TO: Doug Feith
FROM: Donald Rumsfeld
SUBJECT: Issues w/various countriesWe need more coercive diplomacy with respect to Syria and Libya, and we need it fast. If they mess up Iraq, it will delay bringing our troops home.
We also need to solve the Pakistan problem.
And Korea doesn’t seem to be going so well.
Are you coming up with proposals for me to send around?
Thanks.
Really. That’s it. Now, I’ve experienced the phenomenon of working with such large amounts of money that it ceased to have any real meaning for me. It became an academic exercise, far divorced from finding every last penny in my own beleaguered checking account.
But this? How can one ever become so jaded and cynical that one writes off entire nations, countries filled with people just like you, as “a problem.” The Pakistan problem?!? How can that not be completely, one-hundred-percent offensive? How can any person fail to be disgusted by this.
Then, almost as an afterthought, North Korea doesn’t seem to be going well. How does a nation of nearly 24 million individual men, women, and children get so casually dismissed like this?
It doesn’t matter one iota that I disagree with the politics of Mr. Rumsfeld. It doesn’t matter which presidents he served under. If Mr. Gates or Mr. Aspin or Mr. McNamara said something this… this… inhuman, I’d be shouting just as loud.
Mister Donald Rumsfeld, Undercover Nun is praying for your immortal soul.
(Source: rumsfeld.com)
It's about damned time!
The University of Arizona is creating a new National Institute for Civil Discourse. Undercover Nun finds it profoundly sad that her beloved nation needs such a center, and I hope that it will be effective in demonstrating how people who disagree with each other, who hold passionate positions, and who work in our government can work together for the good of our people without descending into the cesspit of rhetoric that passes for political discourse today.
The National Institute for Civil Discourse - a nonpartisan center for debate, research, education and policy about civility in public discourse - will open Monday in Tucson. It was created in the aftermath of the Jan. 8 shootings in the city where six people were killed and 13 injured, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). …
One of the institute’s first events will be a conference with members of the media, foundations, academic institutions, government and corporations to discuss advancing the national conversation about civil discourse, said Meredith Hay, provost of the University of Arizona.
Although the Tucson shootings were not linked to public discourse, she said, they “created a space for us to think about civil discourse.”
I am still appalled at our Congress members’ complete lack of response to the Civility Pledge. And I hope that we won’t give up on the discussion of civil discourse. All lawmakers who identify as Christians should recognize that maintaining civility in public discourse is very basic to the love Jesus commands us to give to all persons. This same love is revealed throughout the Hebrew scriptures as well, so Jewish lawmakers have no excuse, either. Civility is a bare minimum, and yet our elected leaders cannot promise this to each other or to us.
Undercover Nun prays each day for our government, by name for those elected to represent her. I will pray also for the work of this new Institute.
Screwing the Poor | Mother Jones
It should come as no surprise that Republican budget cutting fever focuses pretty heavily on programs for poor people. Republicans don’t care much about poor people, after all, and Exhibit 1 is their preferred focus for cost cutting in the healthcare arena. Suzy Khimm reports on this, for example:
Leading Republicans in Washington and in the states have set their sights on the federal health care program for the poor, aiming to slash funding and roll back Medicaid, just as Democrats are preparing to expand it to millions more Americans….”I’m sure that’s what [Republicans] are going to do,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La), “and they won’t be the first group that, when first the sign of trouble appears, they want to gut programs for the sick, the elderly and the children.”
Medicare is for old people, and old people vote Republican. Medicaid is for poor people, and poor people don’t vote Republican. So naturally Medicaid is in the crosshairs.
Undercover Nun knows it isn’t true that conservatives hate our most vulnerable groups. The truth of the matter is that conservatives believe that private citizens and organizations should be responsible for helping these people, and that government should stay out of it. Progressives believe that the government can leverage economies of scale and scope to support our vulnerable citizens, and that this strengthens the entire nation. Progressives don’t deny that we should all participate in this very important work, but believe that the government is in a good position to set up a nationwide framework for delivering important services.
I believe that the progressive approach is the more practical approach, which makes it superior. The conservative approach is a wonderful ideal, to be sure, but we aren’t very faithful about taking care of our poor, our sick, our children, and our elderly. Poor people threaten our sense of comfort. The mentally ill frighten our security within our own minds. Elderly men and women scare us, because we know that we’re headed in that direction and we don’t want to. So we try to throw guilt-money at crises, but we don’t get our hands dirty with the quotidian work of caring for those who most need help.
Undercover Nun also believes that it damages the progressive agenda to say such absurd things as Republicans don’t care about the poor. We know it’s untrue, so all it does is build misdirected anger and frustration. There are so many things we should be angry about, so many injustices, so many assaults on the well-being of all people. But angering politicians because we unfairly slander them is not a good use of our time, money, and resources.
Progressives are better than this. Progressives stand up for the poor not because we believe conservatives don’t care about them, but because we recognize that the conservative approach is insufficient to care for the poor.
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.
Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie (via azspot)
YES! YES! Undercover Nun approves of Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie.
PREACH IT, Rabbi!
(via azspot)
What does it mean to be a progressive?
Let me first say that I’m answering this question for myself. I believe that the things I write here are, for the most part, fairly common among progressives, but I’m sure that there will be individual exceptions.
As a progressive, I understand that the world does not remain static. We live in a complex and dynamic world, where change is constant.
As a progressive, I believe that our responses to a dynamic world must not remain static. The best answer yesterday may not be the best answer for today. We may need last week’s answer, the answer from 150 years ago, or a completely new answer.
As a progressive, I believe that “This is how we’ve always done it” is not sufficient reason for our response to a dynamic world. This isn’t automatically the wrong response, but it isn’t automatically the right response, either.
As a progressive, I believe that progressives need conservatives. Truly, we need those who are more reluctant to change their responses to the world because they hold us accountable for persuading them that a different response is the better response.
Similarly, I believe that conservatives need progressives. It is so very easy to fall into the “This is how we’ve always done it” trap, to become comfortable and complacent while Rome burns around us. Progressives help conservatives see other options that may — or may not — be better.
As a progressive, I believe that all persons have value. No human being should be diminished or harmed intentionally by another. I know that this is impractical, because we aren’t perfect, but this is an ideal that we try to live up to.
As a progressive, I believe that all persons are deserving of dignity and respect. No person deserves vilification, manipulation, or abuse. All persons deserve consideration, compassion, and kindness.
As a progressive, I understand that “all persons” includes those who live at the margins: those who live in poverty, who have no home, who lack meaningful employment, who are ill or disabled, who were born in a nation that lacks for basic resources, who look different from the majority, who follow a different faith than the majority.
As a progressive, I also understand that “all persons” include those with whom I disagree. This means that no person with whom I disagree deserves to be mocked, vilified, harmed, abused, or diminished as a person. Those with whom I disagree deserve respect, dignity, consideration, compassion, and kindness.
As a progressive, I believe that religion is important. The ideas that underlie our faith lives shape us deeply as persons, whether we identify ourselves with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, or any other faith tradition.
As a progressive, I believe that rights are important. There are fundamental rights that we share as part of our personhood, such as the famous life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that one of the most important roles of government is to protect and promote human rights, understanding that this is not always simple or easy in a complex and dynamic world.
As a progressive, I believe that human rights include the right to continue living, the right to choose a faith tradition and to practice it, the right to have sufficient nutrition, the right to have sufficient shelter and protection from the elements, the right to meaningful employment, the right to basic care for body and mind, the right to freedom and integrity of mind and heart, and others that I may not have enumerated here.
As a progressive, I believe that life is a precious gift. War should only ever be a last resort, never the first. Violence is wrong, whether it is physical or not, whether it is perpetrated by an individual or by a government.
As a progressive, I also understand that decisions involving the balancing of one life against another are necessarily complex and may not have a “correct” answer. This includes questions of self-defense (both individually and corporately), medical care for the terminally ill, saving the dangerously suicidal, medical abortion, capital punishment, and many others. I do not know if there are any universal solutions to any of these questions, but I know that each one must be undertaken with proper care and discipline.
As a progressive, I understand that not all responses to our dynamic world are simple. There are many simple (not necessarily easy) guidelines for us, like the bold-faced statements I make here. In practice, though, the ways in which we live these out are usually quite complex. Balancing the rights of all citizens, for example, is a complex proposition, and it does require some sacrificing of individual rights for the good of all.
As a progressive, I recognize that government is sometimes the most effective agent. Yes, I agree that individuals and communities should support those who live at the margins, providing food for the hungry, shelter for the homeless, and protection for human rights. However, we humans often become caught up in our own struggles, and we can forget such important responsibilities. Thus, it is not inappropriate for us to empower our government to take on some of this work, recognizing the government’s unique economies of scale and of scope.
As a progressive, I believe that civility and respect in political discourse should be highly valued, and that we must hold our leaders accountable for this.
As a progressive, I love my country, while recognizing that it doesn’t have all the right answers. It is possible — and probably necessary — to recognize the flaws in my country without diminishing love or loyalty to my homeland. No person, faith group, political party, or other community has an exclusive hold on patriotism.
As a progressive, I understand that diversity is a gift that enriches any community. Great value lies in cherishing the unique perspective and gift that each person brings to the community. The disabled man sees the world differently than the female athlete, who sees the world differently than the retired military officer, who sees the world differently than the foreign students at the local university.
As a progressive, I also believe that we must celebrate the things we all share in common. We may be diverse in ethnic heritage, faith tradition, education, career, physical and mental ability, and any other quality; at the same time, there are many aspects of human life — especially life together in a community or a nation — that we hold in common.
Of course, there are many other things that I know, believe, and/or value. Not all of them define me as a progressive, but I believe that these do.
Last night, I encountered a person on twitter who is a very angry liberal. He believes that conservatives are evil, demonic, and non-persons. He believes that they should be attacked fought without any pretense to fairness, that they have abandoned their personhood and their basic rights to respect and dignity. I disagree, and overnight I found myself reflecting on what it means to be a progressive, and why I was bothered so much by his vilification and abuse.
I believe that progressives have a responsibility to model progressive values, even when this may come at the cost of winning elections. It is our inherent duty to rise above petty unfairness and bickering, to eschew unethical or immoral tactics, to refrain from diminishing the personhood of our opponents.
Progressives need to demonstrate that there is a better answer, a better way to live together and to “do” government. Yes, governing a nation will necessitate conflict, disagreement, and compromise. No, this does not mean that disrespect, indignity, manipulation, vilification, abuse, or any other diminishment is desirable or necessary.
Progressives understand that we’re all in this together. So let’s try to get along, so that we can work for the very best for our community, okay?
A person can never be “legal” or “illegal,” no matter how they arrived in the country. A person is a person, deserving of dignity and respect, endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, infinitely beloved of God… just like you.
No person is a piece of sh*t
Nothing makes me angrier than to see one person call another (or a group of others) a piece of shit. Let me make this very clear: no person is a piece of shit, and no person deserves to be called this.
To equate a person with excrement is an insult beyond the pale in ordinary discourse. It is dishonorable. It is reprehensible. It is hate speech. And no person should ever be called this, not even people I disagree with.
That’s right. I mean it. Not you, not me. Not Glenn Beck, not George W. Bush, not Barack Obama, not Al Franken, not Nancy Pelosi. Not the Marquis de Sade, not Benito Mussolini, not Josef Stalin. Not a single person who has ever lived, who lives now, or who will ever live. Ever.
Even if you are not a Christian, I hope you agree with me that all persons should be treated with dignity and respect. Yes, even Osama bin Laden. Even that seditious leader of guerrillas and terrorists — what’s his name? oh, yeah! — George Washington.
Undercover Nun does not tolerate this language in her physical presence. I am not sure I can tolerate it in my online presence any more, either. When I see this language pop up in public discourse online, I’m going to say something about it publicly. I’m not afraid to use shame: if you equate a person — a beautiful and unique child of God, your brother or sister in this world — to a pile of stinking poop, then you should be ashamed!
You’ve been warned. Undercover Nun is on the rampage.
Love one another. And act like it, for heaven’s sake!
