A Different Way?

I don’t know about you but I am weary regarding the national political discussion. It feels like we will never be unified. I am not expecting a kumbaya moment nor am I expecting us to all be robots, lose our individuality and fall in step to one ideology. But I do expect that we as a nation allow freedom of speech, have civil discourse and agree to disagree.

Recently my husband and I have joined other friends to work through an online course: Redeeming Babel.The After Party- how to engage with others about political ideas in a humble and hopeful way. It explores the how rather than the what of politics. Is there a better way to engage with each other rather than one side “beating” another. In the political arena- is it really all about who wins? Who is the most powerful? Is that the best outcome for a nation?

I am always reminded of my niece-in-law and her comments to her young children. We were at the beach and as typical of siblings, the older child was complaining that his little sister had the shovel and he wanted it. Because he was bigger, he could (and did) physically take it from her. He won the battle. But his sister, as typical, cried and was very upset.

Elaine calmly explained to her son, “That shovel is not that important but you are making it important by taking it from her. What is she learning from this? You won’t even care about it by tonight. However, the relationship you have with your sister is forever. Is the shovel that important that you want your sister to remember that you took things from her?”

I sometimes think that as a nation, we are arguing over a shovel and forgetting that the relationships are important- whether it is our relationships with our family, community, state, nation and even our global relationships.

I was intrigued when I heard about Redeeming Babel.The After Party- https://redeemingbabel.org/course/the-after-party-toward-better-christian-politics/: As the free course claims: “We need to radically recenter on Jesus. It’s time to reframe our political identity as we take the lead in healing what’s broken. Jesus’ call is clear: We are to be salt and light in this world.”

One of the topics they mention is the civil rights movement. Sometimes it is forgotten that the civil rights movement came from church leaders. I really like the “commitment card” that volunteers in the Birmingham, AL campaign had to sign:

I HEREBY PLEDGE MYSELF--MY PERSON AND MY BODY--TO THE NONVIOLENT MOVEMENT. THEREFORE I WILL KEEP THE FOLLOWING TEN COMMANDMENTS:

1 MEDITATE daily on the teachings and life of Jesus.

2 REMEMBER always that the nonviolent movement in Birmingham seeks justice and reconciliation-not victory.

3 WALK and TALK in the manner of love, for God is love.

4 PRAY daily to be used by God in order that all men might be free.

5 SACRIFICE personal wishes in order that all men might be free.

6 OBSERVE with both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy.

7 SEEK to perform regular service for others and for the world.

8 REFRAIN from the violence of fist, tongue, or heart.

9 STRIVE to be in good spiritual and bodily health.

10 FOLLOW the directions of the movement and of the captain on a demonstration.

What about you? Are you fed up with the political discussions? Do you hope for a different way?

As with all things, the political issue that we are experiencing will pass away. What will be left in the aftermath- only God knows. But this is a time when Christians can stand up for what we know: God loves the whole world, even those individuals with whom we might violently disagree. We can show to the world how much God loves them, by the love and respect we show our fellow human beings.

Civility

Civility. According to my Webster’s, civility is defined: “deference or allegiance to the social order befitting a citizen. Civil government or polity. Solidarity of civil rights and obligations and civil justice in the civil order.” In some interpretations, it is being polite and showing good manners regardless of how you feel about the person.

Many years ago my husband and I watched a documentary about the British policeman, the “bobby”. It was narrated by David Niven. In it, he remarked that the bobby was trained with the golden thread of civility. It was his demeanor and his speech that was considered the bobbies greatest tool in policing.

In trying to find that documentary I found another one: “The History of the British Police Force”. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P48YT61zII). In that history, the founder of modern day policing, Sir Robert Peel (why British policemen are called “bobbies” or “peelers”) wanted a trained professional force. He felt the emphasis should be on crime prevention by having a police presence in the community through walking a “beat”. He had them wear uniforms that looked more like civilian clothing rather than the traditional military uniform. He felt that the attributes of the officer should be to remain calm, quiet, determined and at all times keep one’s temper. In the history of American policing, similar to our laws, some of the British attributes were incorporated.

Lately I have been thinking about the various police/civilian encounters that have been in the news, especially the ones that have led to loss of life. How did they go so wrong? Is policing a profession? Are we back to just a free for all, much like the wild west? How can officers keep the peace and remain calm, when sometimes those they are helping are violent and disruptive? How can the public remain calm when the police seem violent and disruptive? Is it too much to ask?

I cannot imagine what the police officer must go through. To think, everyday they have no idea what result will be with any encounter they have. Their actions or speech might lead to theirs or a civilian’s - death, dismissal, maiming, or being critically injured. Their experience must be similar to the adrenaline pumped war preparation that military personnel encounter. And for police officers it is every minute of every day that they are on duty.

But then, I think of those of us who encounter the police. Isn’t there some societal contract that we are entitled to dignity and respect from the officers? Shouldn’t there be some type of civility? Aren’t the police the “helpers”, trying to find the root of the problem? Displaying a calm, quiet, but determined demeanor?

I think of our contractor whose mother had a horrific encounter with the police. A physically disabled woman due to a stroke, she had traveled out of state to visit with a friend. On arriving in the town, she felt ill and was taken to the hospital. At the hospital they said she was okay and discharged her. Still not feeling well, she took a cab to another hospital in town who kept her overnight. In releasing her the next morning, she did not want to leave saying she still felt ill. The police were called and from that moment on, her life changed dramatically.

The body cam footage from the police was released and through it you can see the physical decline of the woman. Eventually she lost consciousness in the back of the police car, was taken back to the hospital, coded numerous times and was admitted to ICU. She never regained consciousness and died in the hospital. What is so appalling is the treatment she received from the police. The didn’t cause her death, per se, but they certainly didn’t help her.

I think it mostly comes down to lack of training of the police in handling a person with physical ailments and a basic civility of showing respect to her even if they are biased. It was if the police pre-judged the situation without really discovering the problem. They treated her as if she were homeless and therefore less than human. I believe if one of the officers just asked her, “Is there anyone we can call for you?” they might’ve held off a horrific situation.

And while there are a multitude of police encounters with the public every day that go according to procedure with no incidence, when they go awry, it is heartbreaking. For the individuals involved and for all of us as humanity. It becomes a chipping away at the common decency that we should try to uphold: treating others as we would like to be treated. All of us can chip away at common decency through our uncivil actions, but when the actions come from a position of authority, it is more of an erosion.

Yet, I need not be too quick to point any fingers. As the adage goes, pointing a finger at someone, creates three fingers pointed back at yourself. I think of my thought processes when I see someone on the street or someone in distress or even witnessing those encountering police. Do I see them as someone’s child? Parent? Sibling? Do I pre-judge before I even encounter them? Do I not want to be bothered to step out of my routine to help another? Had I witnessed what our contractor’s mother experienced, would I have spoken up in the middle of an encounter seemingly going wrong? Do I take time to discover someone’s story?

What about you? How are you with all the news stories of police encounters? Outraged? Troubled? Numbed? Apathetic?

What can we, the public do about this? Demand reform? Ask for more training? Think it is someone else’s problem? While I am focusing on the police’s response, there are many questions throughout this whole incidence that poses questions about responsibility: What about the hospital? What about the family? What about the assisted living facility that released her? What about the airport and the policies to assist those who need it? What about the individual herself?

In the alumni magazine for my husband’s alma mater, there was an article highlighting a woman who is using her acting and theatric training to help the police train and roll play the type of situation that our contractor’s mother was in. http://www.twopenny.org/home.html. While it is just a drop in the bucket of a complicated problem, it is a start.

Our contractor has said to us that they just want to see processes and procedures change. I get it. Sometimes we cannot do anything about the current situation- as another adage goes, “it is what it is.” But we can try and make changes so that someone else does not have to go through the same heartbreak- willing to look past our own pain to insist on change for the sake of others and the social order. Perhaps that should also be part of the definition of civility.

What the past can tell the future…

The other day I was talking to our son. I cannot remember the specific topic but it brought to mind a slim volume that I purchased years ago, “Washington’s Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior”. In it, are 110 rules for civility and decent behavior in company and conversation. George Washington wrote down these rules when he was 14, drawing upon a French book of maxims that were intended to “polish manners, keep alive the best affections of the heart, impress the obligation of moral virtues, teach how to treat others in social relations, and above all, inculcate the practice of a perfect self-control”. Of course there were rules that seem applicable to that period of time. Some rules are still said today but use different verbiage. And other rules are timeless. If only certain Presidents referred to this book, I wonder how our foreign and domestic relationships would be?

Some of the rules are priceless:

#2: When in company, put not your hands to any part of the body, not usually discovered.

#13: Kill no vermin as fleas, lice, ticks &c in the sight of others; if you see any filth or thick spittle, put your foot dexteriously upon it; if it be upon the clothes of your companions, put it off privately; and if it be upon your own clothes, return thanks to him who puts it off.

Interestingly, the 45th maxim:

#45: Being to advise or reprehend any one, consider whether it ought to be in public or private, presently or at some other time, in what terms to do it; and in reproving show no sign of cholar, but do it with all sweetness and mildness.

Other great advice:

#48 Wherein you reprove another, be unblameable yourself, for example is more prevalent than precepts.

#38: In visiting the sick, do not presently play the physician if you be not knowing therein.

Just last week I heard a story on NPR about a new book Love Your Enemies by Arthur C. Brooks. He talks about disagreement, civility, and getting along. He has some passionate and interesting theories on what the country’s discourse should be but I did agree with his interview’s final statement:

“Disagreement in a democracy is the source of our strength. If it's performed with respect and warmheartedness — even with love — that's how we avoid stagnation and mediocrity. I'm all about disagreement, but it has to be done in the climate of respect, warm heartedness and love.”

Also last week there was a protest by both sides of the aisle: March for Life, ACLU, conservative and liberal organizations. They were united against the National Park Service proposal to charge a fee for protest costs. (extra security, barriers, etc.) In a rare instance eight seemingly polarized organizations banned together and submitted a letter to the NPS explaining their position:

“Our organizations do not agree on all issues, but one principle we unreservedly support is our right to gather together to express ourselves,” the letter said. “The quintessential locations for these expressive gatherings in the United States are the National Mall and the public spaces surrounding the White House. . . . We are very concerned that, should these rules go into effect, they will chill speech and harm our national discourse.”

How refreshing to know that we CAN agree on something. Perhaps that what unites us is stronger and bigger than what divides us. What unites these groups is the recognition of all rights to protest- not those who can afford it.

What once again strikes me about “civility and decent behavior”- it is all about putting the other person first.

“Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Easier said then done but necessary for all our sakes.

What about you? Have you read or heard any thought-provoking words lately? Were they new ideas or a rehash of one’s that have been around? Why is it that we need to “repackage” in a fresh way, ideas and thoughts that are not new? What other ideas unite seemingly polarized groups?

This week, be aware of the stories and news you hear. Are there common denominators in seemingly opposite views?

How can we demonstrate civility and decent behavior in company and conversation?

Tale of Two Candidates

In this past Sunday's New York Times there were two different articles, in two different sections talking about two different political candidates. Even though the point behind each article was different I was struck with an underlying commonality- civility and manners.

In the case of one of the candidates it appears that civility and manners are severely lacking. He says what he wants to say to whomever he feels is listening with no thought that his words might be hurtful, divisive and derisive.  There appears to be a growing segment of the population that thrives on this type of behavior.  It is if they have been waiting for someone to say without filters all the things that have been bothering them for years.  It is if they subscribed to the opposite wisdom of Thumper in Bambi,  "If you have something nasty to say, then say it." 

The other candidate, according to this article, is one who was raised on civility.  He was taught to be a gracious winner and loser, to be careful in his speech and to demonstrate some self-restraint in dealing with other people with whom he differs.  And, according to this article,  it is a dying virtue.   It is a point of view that is not seen as important to the voting public, rather it is seen as a source of weakness.

I am not particularly enamored with either candidate and am certainly not endorsing one candidate or the other but it did cause me pause.  Why are we so quick to think a braggart, shoot from the hips and no holds barred type of speaker is possessing a strength and virtue?  Why do we consider manners to be weak and passe?  And in thinking so, we need to rid this behavior from  society?

I wonder if it is our faceless society and nameless way of communicating  that has conditioned us to think that just because we don't see someone's face it is okay then to call them out, say negative comments and even say things that verge on the edge of hatred.  Certainly in this day and age if one is in the public light then one is fair game for receiving all sorts of vitriol.  If we have to look someone in the eye would we say that which what we do in the safety of anonymity? 

The thing is, the say-whatever mentality immediately breaks down any future communication and so each camp ends up inciting each other with the same rhetoric. It just encourages more bad behavior. "If you say those types of things about me, I will just retaliate in kind."  Eventually no one listens. Both parties end up extremely frustrated and so, when someone who is louder than everyone else speaks, it is seen as good because the words are expressed.  Yet those unfiltered words break down the communication and so the cycle continues and nothing is accomplished.  

It takes much more thought and effort to be civil and mannerly.  It is a strong person who can suppress his/her urge to "shut the other person down" in order to maintain an open dialogue.  It is a strong person who lays aside his/her desire to "stick it to the opponent" for the sake of living in human community.  It is the strong person who looks at the long term picture of working together rather than "winning" every little battle. 

I wonder about my own relationships and how I communicate?   Regrettably I can recall times when I spewed venomous pronouncements about someone not in my presence. Thankfully it was only in the presence of kin yet still the words were spoken, the poison was out in the air and with it, the potential to corrode the thinking of all who hear.  

I also know that it is hard to look someone in the eye and say words that the recipient might not want to hear.  Yet it is because I am looking into his/her eyes I am compelled to temper my tone and words.  I need to think before I speak, to reflect on the implications of what I say and how it will be received and to temper my words accordingly. Not a bad thing and much needed in this world.  

What about you?  Have you noticed the change in the speech of one to another?  Not only with our political candidates but in the day to day communications or in the internet communications?  How do you respond? 

Charles Dickens opens his novel, The Tale of Two Cities, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..."  It seems like lately, especially during this political campaigning season, we are experiencing the best and worst of human behavior.  

I am choosing to focus on the best-  to try and to be kind, gracious, understanding, slow to speech, slow to anger, empathetic and loving in my dealings with one other- those seen and unseen.  Won't you join me?