Disagreements in a Civil Society

I don’t want to write this, because to do so will force me to wrestle some with the tragic reality of our current political climate. I really don’t want to post this, because history has taught me to expect that many people will respond with aggressive disagreements.

I’m gonna post it anyway, though, because I believe that one of the most important things we’ve lost in our public political dialogue is the expectation that it’s appropriate and healthy to disagree in a civil manner.

With that, here are my thoughts in reaction to the murder of Mr. Charlie Kirk.

It seems that this deplorable act of violence was probably a political act (though at the time of this writing, that assumption has not been verified). Even though our nation has a history of dealing with it, politically motivated violence is unnecessary and detrimental to the health and longevity of our society.

But violence is easy, especially when we don’t see the ‘other’ as being fully human. Military leaders have known for generations that it’s easier to convince soldiers to kill each other when the other side has been demonized – when one side becomes convinced that the other side is less than human.

Any time we make assumptions about another person based on their political opinions, we ignore the other person’s humanity (and we scrape away at our own humanity as well).

Is this where we are as a nation? It seems to me that folks with liberal political opinions demonize conservatives, and see them as less than human. It seems to me that folks with conservative political opinions demonize liberals, and see them as less than human.

In our society, it should always be acceptable to disagree. The free exchange of ideas should always be encouraged and celebrated.

But this is not what’s happening these days. Instead of encouraging political disagreements, conversation, and discussion, we’re jumping to conclusions about anyone who doesn’t agree with us – about all of their political opinions, about their motivations, and about their humanity.

We have to change how we operate. If we don’t make societal changes, we either won’t have a nation, or it won’t be worth living in.

It is absolutely unacceptable that Mr. Kirk was killed. He was a beloved child of G-d, and his life was valuable. The theological and political opinions he promoted are hateful, and should be ignored and argued against. But he absolutely should not have been assassinated.

We have a choice as a society. Either we decide to stop the violence that has woven its way through our political and social life, and then begin to behave and believe and act like we belong together ... or we continue to vilify one another, we continue to believe the worst about a whole category of people with whom we have political disagreements, and we continue to kill each other.

Nothing good comes from the latter choice, so I choose the former. In order to do what I can to work to bring about choosing to stop the vitriol and violence, I commit to at least the following:

• I will remember that those who disagree with me on political issues are beloved children of G-d;
• I will debate ideas, and will not attack the person who promotes those ideas;
• I will not vilify, denigrate, or disparage individuals or groups, especially those with whom I disagree;
• I will not make sweeping generalizations about those with whom I have political disagreements;
• I will point out and work to correct any hateful speech to which I am exposed;
• I will work to correct any comment which lumps a whole group (liberals, conservatives, etc.) together, especially when those comments are not obviously applicable to the whole group.

There’s no way that I, as one singular person, can change a whole society. But if there are enough of us who commit to making positive changes, then perhaps there’s a chance that we can reclaim a healthy and vibrant civil society.

$0.02