Can “Good Faith” Still be Assumed?
March 20, 2012
Elizabeth Scalia
It is now nearly unwatchable in its partisan hackery, but there was a time when I rarely missed Hardball with Chris Matthews. From the late 1990s to the early-aughts, the program regularly brought together a diverse and energetic panel of pundits who, while rarely in full agreement, could be counted on to offer thoughtful analysis with wit and a surprising amount of civility and good humor. That began to change during the 2004 election; one noticed some strained exchanges and fewer smiles. During a particularly tense broadcast, Peggy Noonan tried to end a heated exchange and recapture the tail-end of goodwill by pronouncing something that used to be called a truism, but had begun to seem like a rare bit of insight: “people can disagree,” she said, “and still be decent people.”
Beginning my first blog around that time, I took those words to heart; “civility” became its byword, and perhaps it was mere illusion but—for a little while, at least—the blog did manage a civil tone both in its postings and comboxes; commenters from left and right would manage to hold their tempers and digital-tongues; on those occasions where my own passions got the better of me and I indulged in some rhetorical excess, I was usually willing and able to ruefully acknowledge it, re-affirming my commitment to “civility.”
Things began to break down, however, in 2006, beginning with the not-yet-Tea-Partying right. Unable to reconcile myself to their thoughts on immigration reform, I argued against the extreme “solutions” being bandied about and, aligning with the bishops, found myself (and the Catholic church) being castigated as “liberal bleeding hearts” and “socialists” whose interests were about “nothing but a desire for a**es in the pews and dollars in the collection plate.” Although some Evangelical leaders have recently begun to voice similar ideas to those expressed by the bishops, there was at the time no assumption of good faith from the right—no willingness to consider that the bishops and the church were speaking with a sense of mission and conscience, and from a commitment to the dignity of the human person. I lost nearly 2,000 regular readers in that melee, and it seemed worth it to me.
The advent of Sarah Palin, however, seemed to usher in a genuine madness that affected every inch of the political spectrum, and it brought about the blog’s second “crisis of civility.” If I found something praiseworthy in Palin, my “liberal” readers sneered and called me names. If I mildly critiqued the woman, her defensive fans became stunningly abusive. Ironically, as I tried to be both honest and fair-minded about Palin, I discovered neither left nor right could allow an assumption of good faith on my part. Perhaps projecting their passions on to me, both sides assumed that whatever I was writing about Palin was meant as a political manipulation against them. If I tried to offer balanced criticism, Palin fans accused me of “hating her from the first.” When I—because I detest bullies—defended her from an unconscionable assault by supposedly “liberal” people and the press after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, I was derided, even by progressives whom I considered real friends, as being a “secret Palin lover.”
A good-faith assumption that I simply meant the exact words I wrote, in either case, and nothing more, was not permitted. It was deemed not possible.
Ms. Noonan’s dictum that people could disagree and still be “decent people” began to take a real beating, and things have only gotten worse, since then. Lately, I admit, my willingness to assume good-faith of others, particularly of the administration, has collapsed, mostly thanks to the HHS mandate and the shameful willingness of some to mischaracterize the church’s opposition as being about something other than a genuine concern for first-amendment freedoms, and to play along with the utterly false, media-contrived, so-called “war on women” narrative.
I don’t like feeling like this; I don’t like surrendering that “good faith” instinct—and I most certainly do not like being in discord with fellow Catholics, many of whom I have long liked and respected, over a matter of policy.
In America magazine, Father Thomas Massaro, S.J., expresses concerns about this discord, and the disappearance of “civility” among church-members; he writes,
. . .Whatever policy outcomes unfold this year or next or further down the line [we must still share] the Eucharist (and much else) with thousands of those with whom we are not currently seeing eye to eye. Should our future sharing of the bread of salvation be compromised by our current failure to share a modicum of civility?
These are worthy thoughts, indeed. But I think what is becoming a true sticking-stone for many is the sense that the administration, and the press that supports it, have not displayed much evidence of “good faith” themselves—not last November when Nancy Pelosi groused about Catholics having “this conscience thing”; not in January when George Stephanopoulos pretended that someone, somewhere was suddenly scheming to “ban contraceptives”; not when President Obama told then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan that he considered the conscience “a sacred thing” and then actively moved against it.
I would like to believe that Obama spoke to Dolan in good faith. In fact, a progressive friend insists that Obama did mean it, but that he was swayed against his own best instincts by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and others.
I want to make that good faith assumption of the president—I want to believe that he meant what he said to Dolan, back in November—but it’s difficult to reconcile the man who coolly said “I won” to the GOP the very first time he met them, with a president unable to tell his cabinet secretary and advisors that his own opinions and words have weight and meaning; a president all-too willing to play along with a malicious lie, and a spitefully dishonest and destructive game.
If good-faith assumptions cannot be well-founded, what does "civility" serve beyond the preservation of polite fiction?
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Ellis Island West?
How Dare You Criticize Palin
How Dare You Defend Palin
Pelosi and "this conscience thing"
Stephanopoulos on banning contraception"
Father Massaro in America
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
3.20.2012 | 8:59am
Felapton says:
Obama spoke to Dolan in "good faith," a willingness to listen and weigh the arguments on both sides. But they did not have the same perception of the conversation and they were not speaking with a common set of definitions.
Dolan thinks of himself as the spokesman for a church of one billion adherents worldwide which includes about one quarter of the American population. Obama knows that one fourth of the population is nominally Catholic, on any given Sunday one third of that fourth is at mass, about one third of that twelfth knows their bishop's name and even fewer let their bishop tell them whom to vote for. Accordingly, he thinks of Dolan as a spokesman for one thirty-sixth of the population, most of whom vote Republican anyway.
Moreover, Obama just means something different when he says "conscience" from what a Catholic means. Dolan should have realized that. If he has never known a Protestant (It's possible.), he should have somebody brief him before his next meeting at the White House.
Dolan thinks of himself as the spokesman for a church of one billion adherents worldwide which includes about one quarter of the American population. Obama knows that one fourth of the population is nominally Catholic, on any given Sunday one third of that fourth is at mass, about one third of that twelfth knows their bishop's name and even fewer let their bishop tell them whom to vote for. Accordingly, he thinks of Dolan as a spokesman for one thirty-sixth of the population, most of whom vote Republican anyway.
Moreover, Obama just means something different when he says "conscience" from what a Catholic means. Dolan should have realized that. If he has never known a Protestant (It's possible.), he should have somebody brief him before his next meeting at the White House.
3.20.2012 | 9:06am
maineman says:
Back in the '90s, when many were talking and writing about the Clinton White House being "in disarray," George Will wrote that this was just "what liberalism looks like."
I think we can paraphrase him now: "This is what paganism looks like."
Unfortunately, it's what liberals want, not consciously, of course, and there are still enough of them around to wreak havoc with the culture.
I think we can paraphrase him now: "This is what paganism looks like."
Unfortunately, it's what liberals want, not consciously, of course, and there are still enough of them around to wreak havoc with the culture.
3.20.2012 | 9:58am
Dan C says:
Such civility requires that we address our prejudices first. Such civility is an obligation placed first (and maybe exclusively) on me and not an attempt to require it to be immediately reciprocated. As such, the tone amd the language needs to be direct and perhaps confrontational, but need not be histrionic, overwrought, and dramatic.
Good writers though can whip up the drama by their particularly illustrative good writing. Peggy Noonan though is brilliant, subtle, and is particularly non-dramatic and may be a good model.
Writers seeking such equipoise would need to avoid the habit of name-calling, and the use of terms and illustrations such as "baby-killer" for pro-abortion supporters would be a start. (For instance, Dr. Robert George is particularly cordial with Art Caplan in exchanges with this very powerful, influential pro-abortion ethicist. The powerful treat each other thus, and we should follow.) I actually have known, shared meals with, and shared houses with real murderers (not just a supporter of a politician who supports abortion-there is more than a minor distinction) and would say that these creatures of God require love too.
Also, the blog writer should avoid saying something just to whip up a "pile on" the "enemy" post. These are not uncommon and are usually anti-liberal or anti-conservative routine, re-warmed opportunuties to whip up readership and traffic to one's blog. This is blogdom's version of "if it bleeds, it leads," a sensationalism that runs to merely increase readership.
Finally, the professional propagandists from partisan think tanks whose main job and exclusive career has been to bash the opponent should be eschewed. First Things provides some of those folks with a routine soapbox.
Identifying that we want co-religionists, even those damn conservatives/Republicans/liberals/Green Party/Catholic Workers in the pews with us is important. It is not our job to find good faith in another's works. It is our job to stop the insanely sensational rhetoric ourselves, to cease the villification of common people (because powerful conservatives have no problem chit-chatting with powerful pro-abortionists), and to provide fewer platforms for the truly divisive who seek division as a function of his/her employment.
Ending the constant division of the Communion needs to start with me.
Good writers though can whip up the drama by their particularly illustrative good writing. Peggy Noonan though is brilliant, subtle, and is particularly non-dramatic and may be a good model.
Writers seeking such equipoise would need to avoid the habit of name-calling, and the use of terms and illustrations such as "baby-killer" for pro-abortion supporters would be a start. (For instance, Dr. Robert George is particularly cordial with Art Caplan in exchanges with this very powerful, influential pro-abortion ethicist. The powerful treat each other thus, and we should follow.) I actually have known, shared meals with, and shared houses with real murderers (not just a supporter of a politician who supports abortion-there is more than a minor distinction) and would say that these creatures of God require love too.
Also, the blog writer should avoid saying something just to whip up a "pile on" the "enemy" post. These are not uncommon and are usually anti-liberal or anti-conservative routine, re-warmed opportunuties to whip up readership and traffic to one's blog. This is blogdom's version of "if it bleeds, it leads," a sensationalism that runs to merely increase readership.
Finally, the professional propagandists from partisan think tanks whose main job and exclusive career has been to bash the opponent should be eschewed. First Things provides some of those folks with a routine soapbox.
Identifying that we want co-religionists, even those damn conservatives/Republicans/liberals/Green Party/Catholic Workers in the pews with us is important. It is not our job to find good faith in another's works. It is our job to stop the insanely sensational rhetoric ourselves, to cease the villification of common people (because powerful conservatives have no problem chit-chatting with powerful pro-abortionists), and to provide fewer platforms for the truly divisive who seek division as a function of his/her employment.
Ending the constant division of the Communion needs to start with me.
3.20.2012 | 10:12am
pdn Michael says:
Thanks, Elizabeth, for a reminder about civility, and, yes, I try to remind folks that without it, we don't have much of a civilization.
You also reminded me of something about the change in public discourse that occurred when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate. I remember remembering Jocelyn Elders' shenanigans, such as assurances that masturbation should be taught in schools, and the whole "drug sniffin' dogs" business, and how I found it difficult to account for the vitriolic assault from the left, which has continued right down to Bill Maher's comments that Ms. Palin is a c**t, among other crudeness. While I remember the outrage expressed over Elders' masturbation promotion program, I don't recall any insults and name-calling having been directed at Ms. Elders as they were, and continually are, at Sarah Palin.
At the risk of a juvenile-sounding accusation of "they started it," I think that the Palin candidacy is where the left started it. But the more interesting question is why? What was it about Palin that caused the media driven scorched earth policy that has dogged her ever since?
I might suggest (not as an answer but as a discussion point) that the outrage on the left was because the Republicans stole a key play out of the Democratice playbook: They found a reasonably electable woman. And not only that, a woman who was rather attractive, certainly charismatic, and in possession of a certain magnetic energy. In short, the play instantly started working better than it ever had for the Democrats (witness Ferarro, Hillary, etc.) and they were having none of it. The insult-laden rest is history.
I would further suggest that the udeniably nasty reaction to the liberal reaction from conservatives, the other piece of the history, might have simply been a result of an impatient weariness with the left and its large retinue of sympathetic media. The right had played by the rules; an election in which a major first, an african-american candidate, was lauded and cheered and emotionalized, the other major first, a woman on the Republican executive branch ticket, was more than simply ignored; the candidate herself was insulted, bullied, marginalized. In short, Palin suffered, at the hands of the very left who had so derided woman-less politics for so long, the exact dismissive and head-patting marginalization they tried to change for so long. They couldn't bring themselves to notice that this was a significant breakthrough on the part of the Republicans.
Thus, while not excusing uncivil comments from the right, it seems like the events of those days showed, as current events continue to show, that the key play in the left's book is what RJN called "beyondism," where the left (mostly) invites us to get beyond our differences and find a solution, but what they mean (witness recent HHS pronouncements) is their way or the highway. Not just women running for office, but ONLY women who remain lockstep with liberal dogma. Reciprocal insults and crudeness excepted, how else is the right supposed to respond?
You also reminded me of something about the change in public discourse that occurred when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate. I remember remembering Jocelyn Elders' shenanigans, such as assurances that masturbation should be taught in schools, and the whole "drug sniffin' dogs" business, and how I found it difficult to account for the vitriolic assault from the left, which has continued right down to Bill Maher's comments that Ms. Palin is a c**t, among other crudeness. While I remember the outrage expressed over Elders' masturbation promotion program, I don't recall any insults and name-calling having been directed at Ms. Elders as they were, and continually are, at Sarah Palin.
At the risk of a juvenile-sounding accusation of "they started it," I think that the Palin candidacy is where the left started it. But the more interesting question is why? What was it about Palin that caused the media driven scorched earth policy that has dogged her ever since?
I might suggest (not as an answer but as a discussion point) that the outrage on the left was because the Republicans stole a key play out of the Democratice playbook: They found a reasonably electable woman. And not only that, a woman who was rather attractive, certainly charismatic, and in possession of a certain magnetic energy. In short, the play instantly started working better than it ever had for the Democrats (witness Ferarro, Hillary, etc.) and they were having none of it. The insult-laden rest is history.
I would further suggest that the udeniably nasty reaction to the liberal reaction from conservatives, the other piece of the history, might have simply been a result of an impatient weariness with the left and its large retinue of sympathetic media. The right had played by the rules; an election in which a major first, an african-american candidate, was lauded and cheered and emotionalized, the other major first, a woman on the Republican executive branch ticket, was more than simply ignored; the candidate herself was insulted, bullied, marginalized. In short, Palin suffered, at the hands of the very left who had so derided woman-less politics for so long, the exact dismissive and head-patting marginalization they tried to change for so long. They couldn't bring themselves to notice that this was a significant breakthrough on the part of the Republicans.
Thus, while not excusing uncivil comments from the right, it seems like the events of those days showed, as current events continue to show, that the key play in the left's book is what RJN called "beyondism," where the left (mostly) invites us to get beyond our differences and find a solution, but what they mean (witness recent HHS pronouncements) is their way or the highway. Not just women running for office, but ONLY women who remain lockstep with liberal dogma. Reciprocal insults and crudeness excepted, how else is the right supposed to respond?
3.20.2012 | 10:30am
Fr Peter Calabrese says:
You are right - not all of the conservative punditry is in line with Catholic Teaching and I too have the eerie feeling that I am being played fro attempts at dialogue and good will. Cardinal Stafford had an article, I am sure you saw, that traced the beginnings of this bad faith among Catholic clergy to the 1968 dissent from Humane Vitae. The change you are noticing really does have to do with the content of the matter being discussed. While real moral issues have been at the heart of these differences as the solutions become gravely immoral ti becomes harder to trust in the good faith of the other side. It is easy for me to trust good faith when we are, talking about HOW to protect workers' rights feed the poor, deal with immigration. But when abortion becomes a right, contraception is something to be given to high schoolers at my expense and the government seeks to ridicule and divide the Church bad faith is lost. When wars become pre-emptive, the stranger among us is an enemy adn the common good gives way to the good of the few good faith is lost. Catholics, especially the professionals and the catechists, have to study the Catechism and the Social Doctrine compendium together to see again amongst themselves what their Church really teaches and examine their consciences to see how much the Faith molds their ideology and how much ideology molds their understanding of their Faith.
3.20.2012 | 10:45am
David Nickol says:
Elizabeth Scalia: "If good-faith assumptions cannot be well-founded, what does 'civility' serve beyond the preservation of polite fiction?"
It seems to me that if civility has value—and I believe it does—it is even *more* important when good faith is in doubt than when it is assumed. It is extremely easy to doubt the good faith of those who disagree with us. Kathryn Schulz, author of "Being Wrong," points out that when we examine our own positions, we find that they conform completely to reality, and we see no flaws in our thinking and no ulterior motives. If we did, we'd change our minds. So when others disagree with us, we make a series of three assumption. First, they must be ignorant. They must not have all the facts. And when we point out all the facts to them, then they will agree with us. But when this doesn't work, we (second) assume they are stupid. They have all the facts, but they are just incapable of assembling all the pieces and coming up with the right conclusion. But then when we continue to argue and we see that they are actually not stupid, we find ourselves left with the only possible (third) conclusion: They are evil. They know the facts, they are not stupid, so they must be deliberately and willfully arguing in bad faith.
She makes a stunning observation. In the video I link to below, she asks members of her audience what it feels like to be wrong. She gets various answers all along the lines that it is a terrible feeling. But she points out that the audience is answering the question what it feels like to *realize* that you are wrong. Being wrong without realizing you are wrong, she points out, feels exactly like being right.
http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html
Even if you just can't possibly believe someone who disagrees with you is arguing in good faith, is incivility going to help matters? Remember what St. Paul said:
**********
Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, on your part, live at peace with all. Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Rather, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.” Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.
**********
It seems to me that if civility has value—and I believe it does—it is even *more* important when good faith is in doubt than when it is assumed. It is extremely easy to doubt the good faith of those who disagree with us. Kathryn Schulz, author of "Being Wrong," points out that when we examine our own positions, we find that they conform completely to reality, and we see no flaws in our thinking and no ulterior motives. If we did, we'd change our minds. So when others disagree with us, we make a series of three assumption. First, they must be ignorant. They must not have all the facts. And when we point out all the facts to them, then they will agree with us. But when this doesn't work, we (second) assume they are stupid. They have all the facts, but they are just incapable of assembling all the pieces and coming up with the right conclusion. But then when we continue to argue and we see that they are actually not stupid, we find ourselves left with the only possible (third) conclusion: They are evil. They know the facts, they are not stupid, so they must be deliberately and willfully arguing in bad faith.
She makes a stunning observation. In the video I link to below, she asks members of her audience what it feels like to be wrong. She gets various answers all along the lines that it is a terrible feeling. But she points out that the audience is answering the question what it feels like to *realize* that you are wrong. Being wrong without realizing you are wrong, she points out, feels exactly like being right.
http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html
Even if you just can't possibly believe someone who disagrees with you is arguing in good faith, is incivility going to help matters? Remember what St. Paul said:
**********
Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, on your part, live at peace with all. Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Rather, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.” Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.
**********
3.20.2012 | 11:22am
Lawrence Cunningham says:
Of Courtesy it is much less
than greatness of heart or holiness
But in my walks it seems to me that
the grace of God is in courtesy.
[H. Belloc]
than greatness of heart or holiness
But in my walks it seems to me that
the grace of God is in courtesy.
[H. Belloc]
3.20.2012 | 11:31am
maineman says:
There are many reasons for the vitriol directed toward Sarah Palin, but the one that causes her to be hated, and she is truly hated by liberals, is that she is a Christian. Same as for Bush.
"For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."Eph 6:12
"For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."Eph 6:12
3.20.2012 | 11:50am
donald todd says:
I saw two items worth commenting on. First, in regard to the illegal immigration issue, the Atlanta archdiocesan newspaper picked a side. I found this unfortunate. The bishops should have noted the morality involved and then depended on good Catholics to work out a political plan, which I believe is the role of the laity coming out of Vatican II. The bishops worked it out, unsuccessfully, and by all appearances left out an important consideration: Mexico's stance toward its own citizens.
The second item suggested that most Catholic vote Republican. The actual figures note that most Catholics vote with the rest of the country. The last presidential election found Catholics voting 54-percent for a pro-abortion Democrat. Doesn't sound very Republican to me.
The second item suggested that most Catholic vote Republican. The actual figures note that most Catholics vote with the rest of the country. The last presidential election found Catholics voting 54-percent for a pro-abortion Democrat. Doesn't sound very Republican to me.
3.20.2012 | 11:51am
Matt says:
My wife works for a large non-profit which could be accused from the right as expanding the welfare state, and from the left as being beholden to a handful of willful donors.
What I find fascinating is that in their last strategic planning cycle they reviewed their organization's values and added the following item: Assume positive intent.
I've never seen an organization do that...specify as a value that all parties in the organization must assume positive intent, meaning that everyone must realize that all parties are addressing issues from a place of conscience and goodwill, even if they don't exactly agree on the execution of a particular initiative.
I think it's exceptional vision on their part to recognize how their work could be easily politicized, and that they've taken steps to the quell potential flames of partisanship which would ultimately undermine the entire organization and good work it accomplishes.
Add to that...my wife is a liberal and I'm a conservative. Our family couldn't have dinner together every night if didn't assume some positive intent or civility.
What I find fascinating is that in their last strategic planning cycle they reviewed their organization's values and added the following item: Assume positive intent.
I've never seen an organization do that...specify as a value that all parties in the organization must assume positive intent, meaning that everyone must realize that all parties are addressing issues from a place of conscience and goodwill, even if they don't exactly agree on the execution of a particular initiative.
I think it's exceptional vision on their part to recognize how their work could be easily politicized, and that they've taken steps to the quell potential flames of partisanship which would ultimately undermine the entire organization and good work it accomplishes.
Add to that...my wife is a liberal and I'm a conservative. Our family couldn't have dinner together every night if didn't assume some positive intent or civility.
3.20.2012 | 12:13pm
Jim Cromwell says:
Would a fair and civil, good faith review of the current HHS debate, ignore the following?
1) First: that President Obama not only said that "conscience" was important. He in point of fact offered a compromise with the bishops, to allow for this conscience exemption. Obama saying that the government would allow Catholics to not pay for abortion services, but allowing others to cover the cost.
I2) n other words, it was not Obama, but the Bishops, who turned down civility, and compromise. The Bishops and conservative Catholics on First Things, even explicitly telling us that they would not "compromise," at all.
Consider this second point more closely in fact: isn't it difficult, or even logically impossible, for a give-and-take, good faith dialogue, to take place. When one side firmly says that its opinions are the absolute word of God; and that therefore absolutely no compromise is possible.
In other words: have the conservative elements of the Catholic Church been negotiating in good faith?
Or have they secretly disavowed any possiblity of compromise, from the very start? Believing that their voice is the voice of God. And that therefore, no real compromise is possible?
1) First: that President Obama not only said that "conscience" was important. He in point of fact offered a compromise with the bishops, to allow for this conscience exemption. Obama saying that the government would allow Catholics to not pay for abortion services, but allowing others to cover the cost.
I2) n other words, it was not Obama, but the Bishops, who turned down civility, and compromise. The Bishops and conservative Catholics on First Things, even explicitly telling us that they would not "compromise," at all.
Consider this second point more closely in fact: isn't it difficult, or even logically impossible, for a give-and-take, good faith dialogue, to take place. When one side firmly says that its opinions are the absolute word of God; and that therefore absolutely no compromise is possible.
In other words: have the conservative elements of the Catholic Church been negotiating in good faith?
Or have they secretly disavowed any possiblity of compromise, from the very start? Believing that their voice is the voice of God. And that therefore, no real compromise is possible?
3.20.2012 | 12:39pm
andy says:
I think that incivility begins when we no longer see a person when we disagree. We see instead an enemy to vanquish, to put down, to force to see the “logic” of our stance. Once we have an enemy, it is easy to take the next step to personal destruction, which is what incivility is about.
I believe also that incivility stems from not being willing to listen to the other person, to read what the other person writes and to do it with an open mind. To then, engage on the ideas and not with the person. Unfortunately, I have been told that to understand what someone we disagree with is saying means acceptance. This is not true, understanding what a person believes does not mean acceptance, it means seeing a person, not an enemy.
Incivility starts with the belief that other people are not acting in good faith. It is based on the idea that other person started it, or that I would never do that. When we feel superior to others, it becomes easy then to move to incivility. We need to check our egos at the door so to speak when we engage with people we disagree with.
As my son, who is in charge of security at a large nightclub, so recently told me –“it easier to keeps things under control, when I talk to the patrons in a calm non-threatening tone. When I get mad or feel in charge I have problems.” For my 24-year to have learned, that in his job, which, does sometimes involve confrontations, says that we can learn it to, when our chins are not about to be broken.
I believe also that incivility stems from not being willing to listen to the other person, to read what the other person writes and to do it with an open mind. To then, engage on the ideas and not with the person. Unfortunately, I have been told that to understand what someone we disagree with is saying means acceptance. This is not true, understanding what a person believes does not mean acceptance, it means seeing a person, not an enemy.
Incivility starts with the belief that other people are not acting in good faith. It is based on the idea that other person started it, or that I would never do that. When we feel superior to others, it becomes easy then to move to incivility. We need to check our egos at the door so to speak when we engage with people we disagree with.
As my son, who is in charge of security at a large nightclub, so recently told me –“it easier to keeps things under control, when I talk to the patrons in a calm non-threatening tone. When I get mad or feel in charge I have problems.” For my 24-year to have learned, that in his job, which, does sometimes involve confrontations, says that we can learn it to, when our chins are not about to be broken.
3.20.2012 | 12:56pm
Brian says:
“people can disagree,” she said, “and still be decent people.”
I often wonder whether this assuming the worst about those we disagree with is spillover from the abortion debate. When I read the above quote from Peggy Noonan, the first thing that jumped into my mind was the opening lines of a Peter Kreeft article I had read back in the late 90s entitled "Human Personhood Begins at Conception".
Dr. Kreeft wrote:
"Non-Christians and even Christians can take opposite positions on abortion even when they think rationally, honestly, and with good will. The continuing controversy over abortion shows that it is a truly controversial issue. It is not simple and clear-cut, but complex. Just as the choices for action are often difficult for a woman contemplating abortion, the choices for thought are often difficult for open-minded philosophers. Everything I have said so far is a lie, in fact a dangerous lie."
And then this line:
"People argued for both sides about slavery, racism and genocide too, but that did not make them complex and difficult issues. Moral issues are always terribly complex, said Chesterton — for someone without principles."
I've long been an admirer of Professor Kreeft's writing, but I remember being taken aback by those lines. In that article, he assumes the worst of people who argue in favor of abortion, and he implies I should do the same.
Abortion is about a divisive an issue as you can get. It can even split families. I wonder if they way we argue about abortion (i.e. assuming the worst about the opposing side) has contaminated the way we argue about everything.
I often wonder whether this assuming the worst about those we disagree with is spillover from the abortion debate. When I read the above quote from Peggy Noonan, the first thing that jumped into my mind was the opening lines of a Peter Kreeft article I had read back in the late 90s entitled "Human Personhood Begins at Conception".
Dr. Kreeft wrote:
"Non-Christians and even Christians can take opposite positions on abortion even when they think rationally, honestly, and with good will. The continuing controversy over abortion shows that it is a truly controversial issue. It is not simple and clear-cut, but complex. Just as the choices for action are often difficult for a woman contemplating abortion, the choices for thought are often difficult for open-minded philosophers. Everything I have said so far is a lie, in fact a dangerous lie."
And then this line:
"People argued for both sides about slavery, racism and genocide too, but that did not make them complex and difficult issues. Moral issues are always terribly complex, said Chesterton — for someone without principles."
I've long been an admirer of Professor Kreeft's writing, but I remember being taken aback by those lines. In that article, he assumes the worst of people who argue in favor of abortion, and he implies I should do the same.
Abortion is about a divisive an issue as you can get. It can even split families. I wonder if they way we argue about abortion (i.e. assuming the worst about the opposing side) has contaminated the way we argue about everything.
3.20.2012 | 12:57pm
Gail Finke says:
Dan C: I think you missed the point of this piece. Elizabeth is saying that she attempts to be civil at all times and that she gets savaged by people from the right and the left. It is all very well -- and very true -- to say that each person should be civil. The question is, what happens when you are civil but no one else will be? And what happens when, as she pointed out has happened to her, people assume civil discourse is really partisanship in disguise?
Like Elizabeth, I am regularly accused of being a Sarah Palin fan or being assumed to hate her violently. People really do not seem to believe that any can like some things about her and dislike others, or that anyone can really (as I do), "I like lot of things about her but I would never vote for her for president."
Like Elizabeth, I am regularly accused of being a Sarah Palin fan or being assumed to hate her violently. People really do not seem to believe that any can like some things about her and dislike others, or that anyone can really (as I do), "I like lot of things about her but I would never vote for her for president."
3.20.2012 | 12:59pm
I, for one, find it difficult to the point of impossible to continue to presume the good faith of a party whose members work so assiduously to maintain the present regime of abortion laws, which maintains a clearly-identifiable war against Christian religion in general and the Catholic Church specifically, which disregards immigration law to its own benefit, but to the detriment of many legal immigrants, and descendants of legal immigrants, which continues a seemingly inexorable march in trampling over our cherished rights to a future that appears increasingly authoritarian, and which expresses such overwhelming contempt for traditional morality, culture, and faith.
Civility is nice, but to every thing there is a season. Civility can return when it's embraced as a value, and not just as a disarming tactic.
Civility is nice, but to every thing there is a season. Civility can return when it's embraced as a value, and not just as a disarming tactic.
3.20.2012 | 1:04pm
Brian English says:
"Obama saying that the government would allow Catholics to not pay for abortion services, but allowing others to cover the cost."
The insurance policy purchased by the employer is still the basis for the contraceptive coverage.
And how do you consider it acting in good faith when the Administration simply promulgated the regulations as originally written at the same time it was offering its alleged compromise?
The insurance policy purchased by the employer is still the basis for the contraceptive coverage.
And how do you consider it acting in good faith when the Administration simply promulgated the regulations as originally written at the same time it was offering its alleged compromise?
3.20.2012 | 1:11pm
Michael PS says:
Civility springs from a recognition that, for the very existence of government by debate, one thing remains more important than any disagreement on policy, however profound: namely, the preservation of the system under which such disagreement can be discussed, and the decisions of majorities arrived at and upheld.
3.20.2012 | 1:13pm
Gail Finke says:
Jim Cromwell: You are overlooking that there is more than one way to compromise. Saying, "Every woman in America will now have contraception, sterilization, and morning after pills free of charge" is a statement that does not allow for compromise. The Bishops, likewise, were merely being honest when they said that they could not compromise the Catholic faith by agreeing to pay for these things.
It is perfectly possible to work out a compromise, though, if the goal is simply assuring that women who want these things can get them at a reasonable price. Allowing employers not to include these things in their plans -- exactly the situation we have right now -- is a compromise between those two positions. It assures women "access" (the buzz word of the day) but does not require an employer to pay for that access.
Your second mistake is in confusing the teaching of the Catholic church with "conservatism" or "liberalism." I don't know if you are Catholic or not, but many Catholics are just as confused about this as anyone else in our polarized, politicized culture. It is the job of the bishops to preserve the apostolic teaching of the Church and, yes, it is their job to pass on these teachings that are the Word of God (not their teachings, God's teachings). That part of what they do is not political at all, and so can't be considered "liberal" or "conservative." It is simply the teaching of the Church. Now, how that teaching is accommodated in a particular government at a particular time and place -- that's where compromise comes in. And again, the current situation is the correct compromise.
I'm sure you would agree that slavery is wrong and that all churches should have spoken out clearly and forcefully against it -- that there should have been no compromise about it. However, people for much of our history did not see that clearly and made all sorts of compromises about it. You cannot compromise on a principal -- you can only uphold it or destroy it. In such cases, compromises accommodate principles, or else there is no compromise. "Free birth control, sterilization, and drugs that induce early abortions for all" is not a principle.
It is perfectly possible to work out a compromise, though, if the goal is simply assuring that women who want these things can get them at a reasonable price. Allowing employers not to include these things in their plans -- exactly the situation we have right now -- is a compromise between those two positions. It assures women "access" (the buzz word of the day) but does not require an employer to pay for that access.
Your second mistake is in confusing the teaching of the Catholic church with "conservatism" or "liberalism." I don't know if you are Catholic or not, but many Catholics are just as confused about this as anyone else in our polarized, politicized culture. It is the job of the bishops to preserve the apostolic teaching of the Church and, yes, it is their job to pass on these teachings that are the Word of God (not their teachings, God's teachings). That part of what they do is not political at all, and so can't be considered "liberal" or "conservative." It is simply the teaching of the Church. Now, how that teaching is accommodated in a particular government at a particular time and place -- that's where compromise comes in. And again, the current situation is the correct compromise.
I'm sure you would agree that slavery is wrong and that all churches should have spoken out clearly and forcefully against it -- that there should have been no compromise about it. However, people for much of our history did not see that clearly and made all sorts of compromises about it. You cannot compromise on a principal -- you can only uphold it or destroy it. In such cases, compromises accommodate principles, or else there is no compromise. "Free birth control, sterilization, and drugs that induce early abortions for all" is not a principle.
3.20.2012 | 1:20pm
Fred says:
And who are those "others" Jim, the insurance fairies? Are you arguing with a straight face that insurance companies required to provide contraception, abortifacients, etc. for "free" are just going to eat that cost? They are going to charge the Church more for the items it does directly pay for so that the cost isn't shifted, just hidden, and even if they didn't, the Church-sponsored insurance would still violate doctrine by providing the services at all. Are you also arguing with a straight face that Obama doesn't know that? If so, I can see Ms Scalia's point about doubting good faith.
3.20.2012 | 1:33pm
CKG says:
David Nickol cites Kathryn Schultz to the effect that 'being wrong without realizing you are wrong . . . feels exactly like being right.'
Which is brilliant, and calls to mind the quote (I've seen it attributed to Mark Twain) that the problem isn't that people know too little, it's that they know so much that isn't so. . .
Which, in its turn, calls to mind something that CS Lewis said about the difference between conforming our desires (and our lives) to the Truth, rather than conforming the truth to our desires. Easier said than done, without a doubt, but the thing is, to pursue the Truth, regardless of how uncomfortable it might be. And no matter how easy it is to convince ourselves that it's essentially the same as 'What I Want'. . .
Which is brilliant, and calls to mind the quote (I've seen it attributed to Mark Twain) that the problem isn't that people know too little, it's that they know so much that isn't so. . .
Which, in its turn, calls to mind something that CS Lewis said about the difference between conforming our desires (and our lives) to the Truth, rather than conforming the truth to our desires. Easier said than done, without a doubt, but the thing is, to pursue the Truth, regardless of how uncomfortable it might be. And no matter how easy it is to convince ourselves that it's essentially the same as 'What I Want'. . .
3.20.2012 | 1:35pm
Richard says:
Back in 2004 folks that attended mass at my church on Sunday came out to find voter guides on their windshields. The entire focus of the "guide" was abortion and the unmistakable conclusion of the pamphlets was to vote for George Bush. Many of us more moderate Catholics were offended. And, of course, the rancor of the election and the counting of votes didn't help. Then Gingrich came to power in 2006 and most certainly had a "take no prisoners" mentality. That he is now supposedly a converted Catholic is also offensive. And speaking of Dolan, why is he so immersed in politics instead of working to save souls and promoting the gospel message? Why, because the latter work is not working. So politics is the avenue the bishops have chosen to get their message across which not only adds to the rancor (few things in life more emotional than religion) but also dilutes the work of politicians to achieve effective public policy.
3.20.2012 | 1:44pm
ROB says:
You will look far and wide before you find a catholic bishop saying the opposition to abortion is the literal word of God. Rather they teach that all right thinking persons should reach the conclusion that the murder of the child in the womb is a moral evil irrespective of one's belief in God or lack thereof. But you are right there will be no compromise with Obama on abortion for two reasons: there can be no compromise with respect to involvement with a moral evil and the compromise offered is a shell game based on the false premise that there is, unique to health care, a free lunch. The bishops may be many things but they are not so stupid to believe that.
3.20.2012 | 1:57pm
Jbl says:
Jim Cromwell betrays his own bad faith and ill will when he suggests that the bishops have "secretly disavowed any possibility of compromise from the start."
I must ask, what is it the bishops are supposed to compromise? Teaching and conscience. How do they do that?
Asked in good faith.
I must ask, what is it the bishops are supposed to compromise? Teaching and conscience. How do they do that?
Asked in good faith.
3.20.2012 | 2:04pm
Louis Baumer says:
Mr. Cromwell:
God did not compromise with Lucifer. He threw him out of Heaven.
That's exactly what needs to be done with our current president.
No compromise. Throw him out of office
God did not compromise with Lucifer. He threw him out of Heaven.
That's exactly what needs to be done with our current president.
No compromise. Throw him out of office
3.20.2012 | 2:23pm
Bob Coldiron says:
Please keep the faith, Ms. Scalia, if for no other reason than that you have re-inspired at least one person to do the same! Peace.
3.20.2012 | 2:42pm
Patrick says:
To @Jim Cromwell:
Does civility really require compromise of ones deepest held religious beliefs? Good faith says I will consider your position and with an open mind, not I will consider your position and change my mind.
Does civility really require compromise of ones deepest held religious beliefs? Good faith says I will consider your position and with an open mind, not I will consider your position and change my mind.
3.20.2012 | 3:21pm
Charles says:
Felaptown,
All true. But Pres. Obama also approaches the matter as unrestrained by legal authority. He sees this as a political game. Manipulate public opinion, shame your opponents, ignore the courts. Overreach and A. possibly win everything, B. at worse lose and bring civility and good faith in others down too, or C. more likely win some lose some and still gain.
All true. But Pres. Obama also approaches the matter as unrestrained by legal authority. He sees this as a political game. Manipulate public opinion, shame your opponents, ignore the courts. Overreach and A. possibly win everything, B. at worse lose and bring civility and good faith in others down too, or C. more likely win some lose some and still gain.
3.20.2012 | 3:26pm
Tony Francois says:
Civility (or more specifically, attributing good faith to an adversary) is a challenge in policy discussions as well as politics, in a way that does not necessarily apply to private or even academic conversations, because the outcomes of political and policy debates have important practical consequences for those with an interest in them. These consequences have become more important with the decline in civil society and the corollary rise in state power as the way all important issues are addressed. Civil society has served, among many other functions, as a forum in which important social issues can be debated in good faith with a view to persuading rather than coercing.
The only thing the government does effectively in the face of a policy dispute is coerce. It is hard to attribute good faith to a political adversary whose 'prize' in the debate will be the power to coerce you to live with their view, even if you are not able in conscience to agree with it. And, despite some comments to this column to the contrary, in today's political struggles involving life and family issues, one may reasonably view those who are proud in their advocacy for the culture of death as adversaries. One could reasonably be unsure of the President's sincerity; it is hard to see how one could grant the same benefit of the doubt to the House Minority Leader, or the HHS Secretary. One should be noble towards them as adversaries, but it does not appear wise to assume they seek the same ends that we do. Civility may temper what we say about another, but it does not seem to require assuming (sometimes against the evidence) that the other's intentions are worthy.
One should also be clear about the point of being civil to an adversary. One purpose is the same in politics as it is on the playground: mere name-calling is
beneath our dignity as human beings. But it also short-circuits the real work of marshaling cogent, principled, evidence-based policy arguments. For those with an open mind (as few as they may seem to be), the only argument worth making is one that appeals to sound principles and the demonstrable facts. Using vulgarities to demean your opponent is worthless in this effort, whether the opponent is Sarah Palin or Sandra Fluke. I can take or leave Sarah Palin, whom I admire in many ways but cannot see as president. I cannot take or leave the political agenda that Sandra Fluke brings to the table. Because I have to resist that agenda, I want effective arguments made against her testimony (as opposed to her person). Calling her names may make a few people on the home team feel good for a minute or two, but it largely dismantles the effort to engage the public at a rational level on the evils of the HHS mandate.
But beyond these tactical and strategic reasons, advocates for Catholic social teaching live in a larger world than most of the participants in today's 'culture wars.' We cannot simply be constrained to the political outcomes, because the Church cannot be limited to the mission of the state. We are a witness to larger realities and truths, and hence stand in a different position when it comes to things like 'compromise' in the quest for political peace. So we must be careful in our consideration of whether civility requires compromise in all situations.
As applied to the controversy over the HHS mandate, right now the bishops are the only ones I know of who are standing up for my rights, as a lay catholic, to exercise my faith and live within my conscience as a secular employer. The last thing that I want them to do right now is 'bargain' my rights away in order to protect the hospitals and colleges, regardless of who thinks that action would exhibit civility.
The only thing the government does effectively in the face of a policy dispute is coerce. It is hard to attribute good faith to a political adversary whose 'prize' in the debate will be the power to coerce you to live with their view, even if you are not able in conscience to agree with it. And, despite some comments to this column to the contrary, in today's political struggles involving life and family issues, one may reasonably view those who are proud in their advocacy for the culture of death as adversaries. One could reasonably be unsure of the President's sincerity; it is hard to see how one could grant the same benefit of the doubt to the House Minority Leader, or the HHS Secretary. One should be noble towards them as adversaries, but it does not appear wise to assume they seek the same ends that we do. Civility may temper what we say about another, but it does not seem to require assuming (sometimes against the evidence) that the other's intentions are worthy.
One should also be clear about the point of being civil to an adversary. One purpose is the same in politics as it is on the playground: mere name-calling is
beneath our dignity as human beings. But it also short-circuits the real work of marshaling cogent, principled, evidence-based policy arguments. For those with an open mind (as few as they may seem to be), the only argument worth making is one that appeals to sound principles and the demonstrable facts. Using vulgarities to demean your opponent is worthless in this effort, whether the opponent is Sarah Palin or Sandra Fluke. I can take or leave Sarah Palin, whom I admire in many ways but cannot see as president. I cannot take or leave the political agenda that Sandra Fluke brings to the table. Because I have to resist that agenda, I want effective arguments made against her testimony (as opposed to her person). Calling her names may make a few people on the home team feel good for a minute or two, but it largely dismantles the effort to engage the public at a rational level on the evils of the HHS mandate.
But beyond these tactical and strategic reasons, advocates for Catholic social teaching live in a larger world than most of the participants in today's 'culture wars.' We cannot simply be constrained to the political outcomes, because the Church cannot be limited to the mission of the state. We are a witness to larger realities and truths, and hence stand in a different position when it comes to things like 'compromise' in the quest for political peace. So we must be careful in our consideration of whether civility requires compromise in all situations.
As applied to the controversy over the HHS mandate, right now the bishops are the only ones I know of who are standing up for my rights, as a lay catholic, to exercise my faith and live within my conscience as a secular employer. The last thing that I want them to do right now is 'bargain' my rights away in order to protect the hospitals and colleges, regardless of who thinks that action would exhibit civility.
3.20.2012 | 3:29pm
Raymond Takashi Swenson says:
The simplistic thinking that judges people on how they think or believe about ONE THING is taught in many environments. It is taught in universities where professors require students to compromise their religious beliefs in order to get a passing grade. And it is taught in churches where pastors teach their congregants that people in another religious denomination are ignorant, stupid and evil, because they hold to what is judge to be an obvious heresy.
Literally millions of secularists are being grown in universities by professors who regard anyone who disagrees with them as subhuman, and millions of religious bigots are being grown by pastors across the nation who view those outside their own fraternity as children of Satan who deserve to burn in hell, and the sooner the better.
One of the areas where these two kinds of teachers agree is in condemning Mormons. For the secularists, the Mormons are evil for insisting on sexual morality and teaching that God lives and actively communicates His will to mankind. For the exclusivist pastors, the Mormons are evil because they believe in a "different Jesus" and teach that God actively communicates His will to mankind. Actual surveys have shown that Mormons are just barely one notch above Muslims in the affections of their fellow Americans.
In contrast, Mormons surveyed have been found to have higher positive feelings toward people of other religious viewpoints than anyone else outside each of those groups. One study reported in the book American Grace, found that 100% of Mormons believe that people not of their faith can escape hell, without becoming Mormon.
So America is engaged in a grand social experiment. One aspect of it is to see if the civility felt and practiced by Mormons can overcome the socially disruptive effects of the incivility felt on all sides toward Mormons.
Literally millions of secularists are being grown in universities by professors who regard anyone who disagrees with them as subhuman, and millions of religious bigots are being grown by pastors across the nation who view those outside their own fraternity as children of Satan who deserve to burn in hell, and the sooner the better.
One of the areas where these two kinds of teachers agree is in condemning Mormons. For the secularists, the Mormons are evil for insisting on sexual morality and teaching that God lives and actively communicates His will to mankind. For the exclusivist pastors, the Mormons are evil because they believe in a "different Jesus" and teach that God actively communicates His will to mankind. Actual surveys have shown that Mormons are just barely one notch above Muslims in the affections of their fellow Americans.
In contrast, Mormons surveyed have been found to have higher positive feelings toward people of other religious viewpoints than anyone else outside each of those groups. One study reported in the book American Grace, found that 100% of Mormons believe that people not of their faith can escape hell, without becoming Mormon.
So America is engaged in a grand social experiment. One aspect of it is to see if the civility felt and practiced by Mormons can overcome the socially disruptive effects of the incivility felt on all sides toward Mormons.
3.20.2012 | 3:38pm
Joe DeVet says:
Cromwell--It's best, I think, to back up and look at the issue again between the bishops and the administration. It has to do with the First Amendment guarantee of the right to free exercise of religion. The administration has attempted to withdraw that right from Catholic (and other) institutions as well as persons. Any compromise--if you will, meeting halfway--would still violate this Constitutional principle.
The second thing to note is that the conscience issue for Catholics and others is the need to avoid cooperating in evil. The proposed "compromise" did not remove from the mandate the requirement that an institution, or a person, would cooperate in the evil of contraception and abortion-causing drugs. Thus, the proposed compromise did not change anything about the problem of conscience that the original mandate created.
The third thing to note is that on the very day the President proposed the "compromise", the original mandate, unchanged, was officially entered into the Congressional record, as law. In other words, the offer of compromise by the President was mendacious, a prima-facie indicator of bad will.
The fourth thing is that one can decline to compromise (even when compromise is possible) in a civil manner. The bishops have not departed from a civil demeanor, and in fact, have bent over backwards to maintain good will in the face of an arrogant and cynical administration.
The second thing to note is that the conscience issue for Catholics and others is the need to avoid cooperating in evil. The proposed "compromise" did not remove from the mandate the requirement that an institution, or a person, would cooperate in the evil of contraception and abortion-causing drugs. Thus, the proposed compromise did not change anything about the problem of conscience that the original mandate created.
The third thing to note is that on the very day the President proposed the "compromise", the original mandate, unchanged, was officially entered into the Congressional record, as law. In other words, the offer of compromise by the President was mendacious, a prima-facie indicator of bad will.
The fourth thing is that one can decline to compromise (even when compromise is possible) in a civil manner. The bishops have not departed from a civil demeanor, and in fact, have bent over backwards to maintain good will in the face of an arrogant and cynical administration.
3.20.2012 | 3:46pm
Cromwell says:
In effect though? I've heard this argued on EWTN: The "compromise" didn't involve any fundamental compromise of principle. Catholics would not have been directly involved in paying for contraception, except under government duress. Thus? They are not willing participants, and are absolved of direct, willfull involvement.
3.20.2012 | 3:51pm
Mutnodjmet says:
As Catholics and Americans, My Son and I will be “Standing Up for Religious Freedom” this Friday, during a nationwide rally protesting the First Amendment violations of the HHS Mandate. My Tea Party group is intending to have a booth, to provide information related to other unconstitutional aspects of Obamacare and its fiscally destructive potential.
My Tea Party group have eye/ears among our "opponents" -- including the local Occupy gang. We are given to understand they mean to try to disrupt the event, considering that the Catholic desire to simply NOT PAY FOR specific medical services constitutes a "War on Women". It is another Team Obama "strawman" argument, which does nothing more than foster the incivility you note in hopes to generate civil unrest with which it hopes to benefit.
Anchoress, when I started writing, I was often too sharp and nasty in an attempt to make a humorous point. My writing has evolved, as I have been lead by your good example. There is much to reflect in what you write today.
My Tea Party group have eye/ears among our "opponents" -- including the local Occupy gang. We are given to understand they mean to try to disrupt the event, considering that the Catholic desire to simply NOT PAY FOR specific medical services constitutes a "War on Women". It is another Team Obama "strawman" argument, which does nothing more than foster the incivility you note in hopes to generate civil unrest with which it hopes to benefit.
Anchoress, when I started writing, I was often too sharp and nasty in an attempt to make a humorous point. My writing has evolved, as I have been lead by your good example. There is much to reflect in what you write today.
3.20.2012 | 4:01pm
Fred says:
Cromwell @12:46, Soooo, knuckling under to government pressure is compromising in good faith because their coercion absolves me from blame, but fighting that coercion and refusing to cooperate with what I consider evil is a bad faith refusal to compromise. What color is the sky in your world?
3.20.2012 | 4:14pm
Tony Francois says:
Cromwell:
"Catholics would not have been directly involved in paying for contraception, except under government duress." I think this view might be sound as applied to the government's uses of tax revenue, where the state has the inarguable right to tax.
But even if one's cooperation in evil were diminished by government duress, why should we as Catholics stand for being put under duress in this way? It is hardly a right wing conspiracy to refuse to submit quietly to a government which would coerce us into underwriting chemical contraceptives and abortifacients which, we are convinced in conscience by both evidence and moral principles, are harmful to women individually, as well as to marriages.
One might disagree with that statement. If so, please feel free to offer evidence and principles to the contrary. Bald assertions that some or all of the bishops are refusing to compromise do not cut it with me. They do not appear to be cutting it with the bishops either.
"Catholics would not have been directly involved in paying for contraception, except under government duress." I think this view might be sound as applied to the government's uses of tax revenue, where the state has the inarguable right to tax.
But even if one's cooperation in evil were diminished by government duress, why should we as Catholics stand for being put under duress in this way? It is hardly a right wing conspiracy to refuse to submit quietly to a government which would coerce us into underwriting chemical contraceptives and abortifacients which, we are convinced in conscience by both evidence and moral principles, are harmful to women individually, as well as to marriages.
One might disagree with that statement. If so, please feel free to offer evidence and principles to the contrary. Bald assertions that some or all of the bishops are refusing to compromise do not cut it with me. They do not appear to be cutting it with the bishops either.
3.20.2012 | 4:17pm
Brian English says:
"Then Gingrich came to power in 2006 and most certainly had a "take no prisoners" mentality."
You are only off by 12 years.
"Catholics would not have been directly involved in paying for contraception, except under government duress. Thus? They are not willing participants, and are absolved of direct, willfull involvement."
So if someone forces me to rob a bank at gunpoint, it is okay since I was under duress?
You are only off by 12 years.
"Catholics would not have been directly involved in paying for contraception, except under government duress. Thus? They are not willing participants, and are absolved of direct, willfull involvement."
So if someone forces me to rob a bank at gunpoint, it is okay since I was under duress?
3.20.2012 | 4:19pm
Ann says:
In response to Mr. Cromwell:
President Obama's offered compromise wasn't really much of a compromise; it was more of a way to appear he was compromising, without giving any legitimacy to the convictions of those involved in the Catholic church.
If the health insurance being offered to Catholic employees still includes abortifacients and contraceptives, those services are still being offered through those jobs. Additionally, the insurance companies would be required to offer those services "free." How, exactly, do the insurance companies get the money to offer "free" services? From everyone who pays into the insurance company. Those charges will be included in the cost of the insurance, whether or not it's specifically itemized. Even if, for example, a Catholic hospital were to attempt to provide its own health insurance for its employees, it would STILL have to provide contraceptive and abortifacient services, even if the hospital itself does not.
Is offering a compromise that accomplishes the exact same thing as one's original goal a "compromise?" The central issue with which the Catholic church has a problem is providing health care plans for its employees that includes contraceptives and abortifacients. Obama's "compromise" has the Catholic church providing health care plans for its employees that includes contraceptives and abortifacients. Would you want to attempt to compromise with someone who a) has the position of strength and b) has the idea that a compromise consists of redefining semantics? For example, a slave confronts his master, wishing to be free. His master says, "Okay! You're free. Now get back to work."
Concerning the argument that the church was negotiating in bad faith because it would not compromise on some issues: everyone brings to the table some things in which they are willing to compromise and other things that they are not. Also, Christians do not need to claim to speak for God as the Bible does so itself.
Some believe that President Obama's compromise is fair. Many believe it is not-- neither perspective means that the Catholic church was negotiating in bad faith. Is disagreeing on how to resolve a problem uncivil? Is refusing to negotiate with someone who does not grant any legitimacy to one's own convictions uncivil? What, exactly, is the fallout for President Obama if no compromise is found? Lower polling numbers in the Catholic church and with those who believe that the Constitution's religious freedom should be protected? What do you think the Catholic church stands to gain by refusing the proffered compromise, if you don't think that its beliefs are legitimate? It's being skewered in the media and those who will refuse to pay for the abortifacients through insurance stand to pay fines or go to prison. Do you truly think that it had some ulterior motive through all of this?
President Obama's offered compromise wasn't really much of a compromise; it was more of a way to appear he was compromising, without giving any legitimacy to the convictions of those involved in the Catholic church.
If the health insurance being offered to Catholic employees still includes abortifacients and contraceptives, those services are still being offered through those jobs. Additionally, the insurance companies would be required to offer those services "free." How, exactly, do the insurance companies get the money to offer "free" services? From everyone who pays into the insurance company. Those charges will be included in the cost of the insurance, whether or not it's specifically itemized. Even if, for example, a Catholic hospital were to attempt to provide its own health insurance for its employees, it would STILL have to provide contraceptive and abortifacient services, even if the hospital itself does not.
Is offering a compromise that accomplishes the exact same thing as one's original goal a "compromise?" The central issue with which the Catholic church has a problem is providing health care plans for its employees that includes contraceptives and abortifacients. Obama's "compromise" has the Catholic church providing health care plans for its employees that includes contraceptives and abortifacients. Would you want to attempt to compromise with someone who a) has the position of strength and b) has the idea that a compromise consists of redefining semantics? For example, a slave confronts his master, wishing to be free. His master says, "Okay! You're free. Now get back to work."
Concerning the argument that the church was negotiating in bad faith because it would not compromise on some issues: everyone brings to the table some things in which they are willing to compromise and other things that they are not. Also, Christians do not need to claim to speak for God as the Bible does so itself.
Some believe that President Obama's compromise is fair. Many believe it is not-- neither perspective means that the Catholic church was negotiating in bad faith. Is disagreeing on how to resolve a problem uncivil? Is refusing to negotiate with someone who does not grant any legitimacy to one's own convictions uncivil? What, exactly, is the fallout for President Obama if no compromise is found? Lower polling numbers in the Catholic church and with those who believe that the Constitution's religious freedom should be protected? What do you think the Catholic church stands to gain by refusing the proffered compromise, if you don't think that its beliefs are legitimate? It's being skewered in the media and those who will refuse to pay for the abortifacients through insurance stand to pay fines or go to prison. Do you truly think that it had some ulterior motive through all of this?
3.20.2012 | 5:12pm
Carl says:
Civility is required in a democratic republic, but nowadays discourse must be strident to be published, broadcast or heeded. That is unfortunate. The coarseness society has embraced makes meaningful debate an anomaly.
3.20.2012 | 5:14pm
David says:
Elizabeth Scalia writes: "A good-faith assumption that I simply meant the exact words I wrote, in either case, and nothing more, was not permitted. It was deemed not possible."
This seems to be the fruit of post-modern theory: words do not--cannot--really mean what the appear because all discourse is a play for power and it's naive to believe otherwise because such things as "civility" and "good faith" are really just tools of oppression.
Liberal academics, of course, used such tactics to deconstruct texts to devastating effect in the 1980s and 1990s.
Unfortunately, conservatives have started using the same tactics without really appreciating their implications.
Thus, it's not possible that you only mean what you say. There must be another agenda, because there always is.
That's the mess we're in.
This seems to be the fruit of post-modern theory: words do not--cannot--really mean what the appear because all discourse is a play for power and it's naive to believe otherwise because such things as "civility" and "good faith" are really just tools of oppression.
Liberal academics, of course, used such tactics to deconstruct texts to devastating effect in the 1980s and 1990s.
Unfortunately, conservatives have started using the same tactics without really appreciating their implications.
Thus, it's not possible that you only mean what you say. There must be another agenda, because there always is.
That's the mess we're in.
3.20.2012 | 5:19pm
Margaret says:
I would think that a "compromise" would entail input from both parties. However, the Obama administration announced the compromise---the so-called "accommodation"---without any participation, discussion, input from the dissenters (the bishops and their allies). Moreover, the head of Aetna insurance said that insurance companies were also not included in the discussions leading to the so-called compromise.
As others have noted above, it was all a sham anyway. Nothing changed. A Potemkin Compromise.
As others have noted above, it was all a sham anyway. Nothing changed. A Potemkin Compromise.
3.20.2012 | 5:40pm
Mike Melendez says:
From Through The Looking Glass:
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”
3.20.2012 | 6:55pm
Ben H says:
The modern 'incivility' came about as a result of a political tactic. After the Democrats fared poorly in the 2002 Congressional Elections, they decided to 'stir up the base.' They believed that this was the strategy the Republicans had used against Clinton in the 1990's. They copied what they perceived as the over-the-top emotional antics Republicans had used to 'stir up' their own base.
Since this seems to be a mostly effective political tactic to them, the deployment of emotional anger has continued since Obama was elected. Its also been an effective tactic for specific social pressure groups - people only began to cave into the demands of the pro-gay marriage crowd when that crowd started to call people bigots for disagreeing with them.
Emotional uncivil anger also exists on the right of course. However it mostly comes from below. 'Incivility' is one thing when you are a man on the street who doesn't influence many people, its another thing when you are a MSM host or politician.
Since this seems to be a mostly effective political tactic to them, the deployment of emotional anger has continued since Obama was elected. Its also been an effective tactic for specific social pressure groups - people only began to cave into the demands of the pro-gay marriage crowd when that crowd started to call people bigots for disagreeing with them.
Emotional uncivil anger also exists on the right of course. However it mostly comes from below. 'Incivility' is one thing when you are a man on the street who doesn't influence many people, its another thing when you are a MSM host or politician.
3.20.2012 | 8:28pm
Fred says:
Fellas, and ladies, on reflection, I believe we've been duped. "Cromwell," I strongly suspect, is none other than our old friend "Brettongarcia/Joe the Human/Whatever-he-was-calling-himself-last-week". I should have recognized the silliness of the arguments combined with the arrogance of the tone. He pops up every so often and says ridiculous things to stir a response. He seems to have succeeded admirably on this thread. Talk about bad faith. He may or may not be as stupid as he seems, but he is definitely a troll. It is best for all concerned, as well as for rational discourse, to ignore him.
3.20.2012 | 9:20pm
Charles says:
Cromwell,
It's very disturbing the intellectual shell game seems to be place Catholics in a position which they are being forced into something, thus to nullify the condition of consent in their moral theology.
It would be 1. a sin to not aggressively fight against such a situation and 2. an act of foolishness to grant your oppressor any knowledge of your eventual capitulation.
It's very disturbing the intellectual shell game seems to be place Catholics in a position which they are being forced into something, thus to nullify the condition of consent in their moral theology.
It would be 1. a sin to not aggressively fight against such a situation and 2. an act of foolishness to grant your oppressor any knowledge of your eventual capitulation.
3.20.2012 | 10:41pm
Dan C says:
Ms. Finke,
I entirely appreciate the point of this essay.
I suggest that the dynamic is that I need to begin with good faith assessments. I think chronic self-assessments of conservative victimization is ridiculous in blogdom when there is a 50% chance that tomorrow George Weigel will, in some distorted fashion, bash liberals for sport.
I think the language of "baby killers" or "murderers" for individuals that voted for Obama (not for the women who get abortion, no, but those who voted for Obama) is not productive and uncivil, and discourteous.
I think perspective is absent when libertarian mindsets predominate in Catholic discussions of economics and taxation, and those supporting progressive income taxes are determined and dismissed as promoting envy and violating commandments of covetousness, despite the fact that such an assessment is not magisterial teaching whatsoever.
I think posts on blogs are inflammatory because they "score" in blogdom-more traffic and more comments. I think that reputed pro-life leaders know how to behave better in public too, as evidenced again by any academic discussion of these philosophers, in a way their proxies in blogdom will not behave.
I think conservatives and liberals have far to go and are about to push each other right out of the Church, and Ms. Scalia is one such partisan.
I entirely appreciate the point of this essay.
I suggest that the dynamic is that I need to begin with good faith assessments. I think chronic self-assessments of conservative victimization is ridiculous in blogdom when there is a 50% chance that tomorrow George Weigel will, in some distorted fashion, bash liberals for sport.
I think the language of "baby killers" or "murderers" for individuals that voted for Obama (not for the women who get abortion, no, but those who voted for Obama) is not productive and uncivil, and discourteous.
I think perspective is absent when libertarian mindsets predominate in Catholic discussions of economics and taxation, and those supporting progressive income taxes are determined and dismissed as promoting envy and violating commandments of covetousness, despite the fact that such an assessment is not magisterial teaching whatsoever.
I think posts on blogs are inflammatory because they "score" in blogdom-more traffic and more comments. I think that reputed pro-life leaders know how to behave better in public too, as evidenced again by any academic discussion of these philosophers, in a way their proxies in blogdom will not behave.
I think conservatives and liberals have far to go and are about to push each other right out of the Church, and Ms. Scalia is one such partisan.
3.20.2012 | 11:48pm
Call Me Mom says:
I, too, started with and have attempted to maintain a civil disourse on my blog; Irate, Tireless Minority.com, but have been forced to make use of the moderator feature to avoid having vulgarities left for any amount of time, since I am not on-line 24-7.
Having been put through the grooming process when younger by my mothers boyfriend after our father left, I can truthfully say that there is a fine line between making an assumption of good faith and living in denial. The trick is to evaluate the assumption of good faith objectively rather than subjectively. What has the object of that assumption done to deserve such continuous regard?
While it is certainly the better part of manners to make that assumption upon a first meeting, when the behavior is and continues to be abusive of that assumption, I find that I must confront it, lest I slip into denial and through that denial allow myself or others to be abused. Because that is one of the most common grooming procedures-to take the assumption of good will and use it to condition the victim to accept an ever increasing degree of abusive behavior.
The more quickly such behavior is confronted, the greater the likelihood that it will not recur. While I acknowledge that my personal experience may not be applicable on a larger level, it has so far, proven to be the case for me. Firm confrontation is not bad manners when one's hospitality and tendency towards civil discourse is being used against you.
Having been put through the grooming process when younger by my mothers boyfriend after our father left, I can truthfully say that there is a fine line between making an assumption of good faith and living in denial. The trick is to evaluate the assumption of good faith objectively rather than subjectively. What has the object of that assumption done to deserve such continuous regard?
While it is certainly the better part of manners to make that assumption upon a first meeting, when the behavior is and continues to be abusive of that assumption, I find that I must confront it, lest I slip into denial and through that denial allow myself or others to be abused. Because that is one of the most common grooming procedures-to take the assumption of good will and use it to condition the victim to accept an ever increasing degree of abusive behavior.
The more quickly such behavior is confronted, the greater the likelihood that it will not recur. While I acknowledge that my personal experience may not be applicable on a larger level, it has so far, proven to be the case for me. Firm confrontation is not bad manners when one's hospitality and tendency towards civil discourse is being used against you.
3.20.2012 | 11:52pm
Hank Bradley says:
Thanks, Ms. Scalia, for your observations on civility versus some of the savagery in public discourse that has grown too noisy in the last four or five years. It's a dangerous tribalism, no other words for it, and I'd like our future leaders to be a bit more civil and leaders of all of us, rather than the factional caudillos we currently suffer.
3.21.2012 | 12:19am
dadfly says:
yes, i'm sure the pharisees and scribes were all very civil. and you've got to admire a man who would could so smoothly and civilly lie about his own mother's "denial" of cancer treatment by an insurance company to score political points toward our enslavement via romneycare, or is it romneycare, oh bother.
3.21.2012 | 12:50am
David Mills says:
"Dan C" says a great deal about civility and then says "the professional propagandists from partisan think tanks whose main job and exclusive career has been to bash the opponent should be eschewed. First Things provides some of those folks with a routine soapbox." Which is untrue -- can he name a single person of his description who's appeared in the magazine in the last year or two? Or on the website, for that matter? -- and therefore uncivil. Really, he can do better.
3.21.2012 | 12:56am
Gian says:
"Dr. Robert George is particularly cordial with Art Caplan in exchanges with this very powerful, influential pro-abortion ethicist"
Isn't this how evil advances in the world--when the good people connive in it?
Isn't this how evil advances in the world--when the good people connive in it?
3.21.2012 | 3:07am
edmond says:
Good faith will always be a presumption, always with shadows of doubt. It is something that, when there is nothing patently wrongful, it is some sort of implied assurance that it is for the common good. The HHS bill is patently contrary to catholic doctrine, (res ipsa loquitur) so the presumption of good faith loses its significance.
Mutnodjmet and son- thank God for your resolve! If only american catholics could have the same fervor as you do and as proactive as the 'occupy' movements and tea party town hall meetings. Maybe Obama, the legislature and hopefully the judiciary could see how catholics are unduly prejudiced by that enactment, and revise the bill.
Mutnodjmet and son- thank God for your resolve! If only american catholics could have the same fervor as you do and as proactive as the 'occupy' movements and tea party town hall meetings. Maybe Obama, the legislature and hopefully the judiciary could see how catholics are unduly prejudiced by that enactment, and revise the bill.
3.21.2012 | 12:13pm
Quentan says:
Question: So what did the Church really say? How firm is Catholic doctrine on contraception?
Some ideas about conception were outlined in papal encyclicals. But those were as late as 1968. And how firm or binding are those apparently very, very new papal speculations?
My understanding is that nothing is binding or "infallible" in the Church, unless the Pope declares it officially Ex Cathedra.
So what exactly did the Church absolutely say here?
Some ideas about conception were outlined in papal encyclicals. But those were as late as 1968. And how firm or binding are those apparently very, very new papal speculations?
My understanding is that nothing is binding or "infallible" in the Church, unless the Pope declares it officially Ex Cathedra.
So what exactly did the Church absolutely say here?
3.21.2012 | 1:48pm
Luke T. says:
I don't mean to sound cynical but the uncivil conservatives are way way ahead of the civil people of whatever political stripe. Very frustrating indeed for these folks. They see where all this is heading while everyone else is starry eyed over hope and change. That can make just about anyone come unglued. Keep regarding them as prejudiced bigots if that makes you feel morally superior about your response to these issues. The HHS mandate was not a shocker to them. And all this hand ringing y'all are doing as you try to decide if president Obama was actually sincere when talking to Cardinal Dolan is absolutely ludicrous. We are way beyond that now, the enemy is at the gate. This HHS mandate fight the church will win in the courts. I'm certain of that. However, my children and grandchildren and other good Catholics will be fighting these good hearted liberals for generations to come as they demonize or kill all who get in their path on their way to building their just and fair (godless) utopian society.
3.21.2012 | 1:50pm
Mouse says:
It seems to me that people have a spirit of anger, and they don't know how to engage in reasoned discourse anymore. We should presume good faith unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. But people today, blinded by their passions, which they constantly stir up through use of media and other means, don't understand what actually is "evidence."
That said, there comes a time when the presumption of good faith can no longer be maintained. For example, a person who blatantly lies and distorts facts, or makes promises and then renegs on them while denying that he did so, can be seen to have bad faith. Forgive me for pointing this out, but Obama is demonstrably in this category, especially on life issues and marriage, and very blatantly on the healthcare bill and the regs being issued now.
We do not hate the person, but we can acknowledge that his behavior no longer justifies the presumption of good faith. Sometimes this is a tough call to make, and sometimes not.
And then, on some topics, no one really can in good faith disagree. Rather, people who disagree are either ignorant, intentionally deceiving themselves, or abyssmally blind to reality for some reason. Again, we don't hate them. But we shouldn't be timid in our defense of truth just because we want everything to go along smoothly as if we are all friends. For example, not letting black people vote. People who were against black people voting were simply wrong, and it really didn't make a rip whether they were "sincere" or not. Or in a more current example, abortion. There are people who see the truth on this matter, and people who don't, whose view needs to change. They may be sincere people, but they are in grave error and innocent preborn human beings' lives are destroyed because of it.
One could argue that the folks that worked for Hitler had good will, really thought they were improving Germany, etc. Frighteningly, this is true! But does that excuse them? Not on your life!
That said, there comes a time when the presumption of good faith can no longer be maintained. For example, a person who blatantly lies and distorts facts, or makes promises and then renegs on them while denying that he did so, can be seen to have bad faith. Forgive me for pointing this out, but Obama is demonstrably in this category, especially on life issues and marriage, and very blatantly on the healthcare bill and the regs being issued now.
We do not hate the person, but we can acknowledge that his behavior no longer justifies the presumption of good faith. Sometimes this is a tough call to make, and sometimes not.
And then, on some topics, no one really can in good faith disagree. Rather, people who disagree are either ignorant, intentionally deceiving themselves, or abyssmally blind to reality for some reason. Again, we don't hate them. But we shouldn't be timid in our defense of truth just because we want everything to go along smoothly as if we are all friends. For example, not letting black people vote. People who were against black people voting were simply wrong, and it really didn't make a rip whether they were "sincere" or not. Or in a more current example, abortion. There are people who see the truth on this matter, and people who don't, whose view needs to change. They may be sincere people, but they are in grave error and innocent preborn human beings' lives are destroyed because of it.
One could argue that the folks that worked for Hitler had good will, really thought they were improving Germany, etc. Frighteningly, this is true! But does that excuse them? Not on your life!
3.21.2012 | 2:50pm
Daniel says:
Mouse and Luke:
So all those who support Obama and health for the poor, are just: "blind"; persons of "bad faith," probably racists; in grave error; who "demonize" and kill; who especially kill babies?
And that is the simple, civil, objective truth? As it is loyally repeated in First Things?
Wow.
So all those who support Obama and health for the poor, are just: "blind"; persons of "bad faith," probably racists; in grave error; who "demonize" and kill; who especially kill babies?
And that is the simple, civil, objective truth? As it is loyally repeated in First Things?
Wow.
3.21.2012 | 3:31pm
Mike Melendez says:
From what I've read of American history, we've always been a fractious place politically. Unfortunately for my generation (I was born in 1949) we missed both the Depression and the Second World War and so did not understand the drive for order that defined the 1950s. That order included the media. Objectivity, or at least the reach for it, was active. That seems to have ended with the 1960s. I remember, as an early teen, the impact of LBJ's TV commercial following a little girl gathering daisies with an atomic mushroom cloud. Goldwater lost. It's gotten steadily worse since then. Reading the history, such moments were more local, given the limits of the media, but stretch as far back as 1828's Coffin Bills' negative attacks on candidate Andrew Jackson. Back then, most newspapers were strongly partisan. We're back to that again, particularly in blog sites. Objective analysis of the day's news is no longer possible to find. We, again, do not know what a real enemy looks like.
3.21.2012 | 6:16pm
Daniel says:
Mike:
I agree with your chronology of the decline of objectivity here.
As for the real enemy? Maybe it is overblown rhetoric on both sides.
And the remedy? Is indeed, to get back to the 50's attempt to attain objectivity, or at least balance.
I agree with your chronology of the decline of objectivity here.
As for the real enemy? Maybe it is overblown rhetoric on both sides.
And the remedy? Is indeed, to get back to the 50's attempt to attain objectivity, or at least balance.
3.21.2012 | 9:46pm
Luke T. says:
Daniel:
If you think five years from now the poor will get better healthcare then they do now good for you.
If you think five years from now the poor will get better healthcare then they do now good for you.
3.22.2012 | 12:37am
David Paggi says:
For an excellent example of courteously dissecting failed opposing arguments, see Defending Life by Dr Francis J Beckwith, or similar work of Dr Peter Kreeft. The excerpt above was intended to demonstrate how insidious bad faith can be, rather than offering an actual argument.
Such civility, however, is not to be expected of the current Administration, whose cynicism and duplicity are straight from Saul Alinsky. In this struggle we have an implacable foe whose goal is the acquisition & exercise of power. I believe the current debates are merely the opening skirmishes in what will become a deperate struggle, where already the 26 & the academy are openly hostile to the truth.
By the way, the fact that all 181 US bishops denounced the putative "accomodation" is prima facie evidence of the bad faith of the Administration, as there are a considerable number whose sympathies are quite liberal. Cardinal Mahoney's forceful essays are a remarkable example.
Such civility, however, is not to be expected of the current Administration, whose cynicism and duplicity are straight from Saul Alinsky. In this struggle we have an implacable foe whose goal is the acquisition & exercise of power. I believe the current debates are merely the opening skirmishes in what will become a deperate struggle, where already the 26 & the academy are openly hostile to the truth.
By the way, the fact that all 181 US bishops denounced the putative "accomodation" is prima facie evidence of the bad faith of the Administration, as there are a considerable number whose sympathies are quite liberal. Cardinal Mahoney's forceful essays are a remarkable example.
3.22.2012 | 12:47am
porro et sursum says:
I think Christ and The Apostle told us that by following Him we may have to hate (even those closest to us) and be hated by others, respectively. Translating the relevant Holy Writ using a less charged word would still convey the ultimate irrelevance of the quality or quantity of others' Faith with respect to the demands of one's own.
3.22.2012 | 3:15am
edmond says:
Quentan, you can check the article on Humanae Vitae as discussed in:
"THE EX CATHEDRA STATUS OF THE ENCYCLICAL "HUMANAE VITAE"
Brian W. Harrison, O.S.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/FR93102.TXT
There are requisites that need be present in order for a papal encyclical to be "ex cathedra". Humanae Vitae complies with all these requisites.
"THE EX CATHEDRA STATUS OF THE ENCYCLICAL "HUMANAE VITAE"
Brian W. Harrison, O.S.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/FR93102.TXT
There are requisites that need be present in order for a papal encyclical to be "ex cathedra". Humanae Vitae complies with all these requisites.
3.22.2012 | 8:39am
Richard says:
Fred,
A+ for camouflaged troll detection. I tried to post a similar alert on just the same dissimulator a few weeks ago and was censored by the moderators, which is why I don't post on First Things anymore.
Best,
Richard
A+ for camouflaged troll detection. I tried to post a similar alert on just the same dissimulator a few weeks ago and was censored by the moderators, which is why I don't post on First Things anymore.
Best,
Richard
3.22.2012 | 10:40am
Quentan says:
Ed:
is your source on infalliblity, itself reliable or infallible? EWTN is not officially connected to the Church; it left the church c. 2001, and is now run by a secular/lay board of directors.
is your source on infalliblity, itself reliable or infallible? EWTN is not officially connected to the Church; it left the church c. 2001, and is now run by a secular/lay board of directors.
3.22.2012 | 11:20pm
Michael says:
Scalia dates the end of civility to the election of 2004 as seen in changes in Chris Matthews, but I’ll offer a genealogy.
Matthews was begat by MSNBC turning from old-style objective reporting to new-style partisan advocacy journalism.
MSNBC was begat by Fox News, which was begat by Rush Limbaugh, which was begat by the election of the first post-Reagan liberal, which was begat by the liberal media’s disbelief at Reagan’s election.
Before that, the media saw itself as objective and not liberal or conservative at all. Conservatives only began describing the media as liberal when the Washington Post took down Richard Nixon.
The media could view itself as objective because it subscribed to the liberal consensus that reigned during and after World War II. Both Republicans and Democrats accepted the fundamental principles of the New Deal and offered only variations on it. Before World War II, the media had been the partisan outlets we are beginning to see now.
Matthews was begat by MSNBC turning from old-style objective reporting to new-style partisan advocacy journalism.
MSNBC was begat by Fox News, which was begat by Rush Limbaugh, which was begat by the election of the first post-Reagan liberal, which was begat by the liberal media’s disbelief at Reagan’s election.
Before that, the media saw itself as objective and not liberal or conservative at all. Conservatives only began describing the media as liberal when the Washington Post took down Richard Nixon.
The media could view itself as objective because it subscribed to the liberal consensus that reigned during and after World War II. Both Republicans and Democrats accepted the fundamental principles of the New Deal and offered only variations on it. Before World War II, the media had been the partisan outlets we are beginning to see now.
3.23.2012 | 12:50am
Michael says:
“Lately, I admit, my willingness to assume good-faith of others, particularly of the administration, has collapsed, mostly thanks to the HHS mandate and the shameful willingness of some to mischaracterize the church’s opposition as being about something other than a genuine concern for first-amendment freedoms, and to play along with the utterly false, media-contrived, so-called “war on women” narrative”
I really like Scalia’s sensibilities, and she provides a fresh alternative to the culture warriors that usually write for First Things. But whenever the subject turns to politics, the awkwardness of her allegiance to the culture war is revealed.
The first part of her article correctly bemoans the current state of civility in politics, but in this passage, she becomes an example of how the culture war distorts clear thinking. She doesn’t *want* to accuse the administration of bad faith, but she’ll join other culture warriors and accuse the administration of bad faith anyway.
The Obama administration—like every other administration we’ve ever had—really represents a coalition that is forever threatening to fall apart. For every conservative screaming about the first amendment, there is a liberal who is screaming about women’s rights. Scalia might believe that Obama’s compromise is no compromise at all and is thus an act of bad faith, but meanwhile, some liberal is accusing Obama of giving too much away and of thus not dealing with the women’s movement in good faith.
The “war on women” may be “utterly false” but so is the “war on religious freedom.” The truth is that the Roman Church understands women differently than feminists do and that liberals understand religious freedom differently than the Roman Church does. Neither group is waging war on the other; they’re just trying to draw lines where they think they should be drawn.
Such common sense, however, is lost on culture warriors of whatever party, and the voices and institutions that once quieted these unruly warriors have gone silent themselves.
I really like Scalia’s sensibilities, and she provides a fresh alternative to the culture warriors that usually write for First Things. But whenever the subject turns to politics, the awkwardness of her allegiance to the culture war is revealed.
The first part of her article correctly bemoans the current state of civility in politics, but in this passage, she becomes an example of how the culture war distorts clear thinking. She doesn’t *want* to accuse the administration of bad faith, but she’ll join other culture warriors and accuse the administration of bad faith anyway.
The Obama administration—like every other administration we’ve ever had—really represents a coalition that is forever threatening to fall apart. For every conservative screaming about the first amendment, there is a liberal who is screaming about women’s rights. Scalia might believe that Obama’s compromise is no compromise at all and is thus an act of bad faith, but meanwhile, some liberal is accusing Obama of giving too much away and of thus not dealing with the women’s movement in good faith.
The “war on women” may be “utterly false” but so is the “war on religious freedom.” The truth is that the Roman Church understands women differently than feminists do and that liberals understand religious freedom differently than the Roman Church does. Neither group is waging war on the other; they’re just trying to draw lines where they think they should be drawn.
Such common sense, however, is lost on culture warriors of whatever party, and the voices and institutions that once quieted these unruly warriors have gone silent themselves.
3.23.2012 | 2:55am
edmond says:
Quentan, the article includes the statements of Pope Paul VI that indicate that it was his intention that the encyclical be an ex cathedra declaration.
3.23.2012 | 2:37pm
Quentan says:
Ed:
With all due respect, there are countless problems with your representation of this article on Humanae Vitae, quoted from EWTN, as firmly asserting/proving that this document was intended to be fully "infallible," and/or Ex Cathedra.
Among other problems?
1) The published summary of this article, is not from an infallible source; it is from EWTN, which is no longer directly affiliated with the Church, but has a secular/lay board of directors.
2) Even as quoted in the EWTN site, the article itself explicitly presents the infallibility question not as fact, but as a "thesis."
3) And? It is explicitly a thesis offered as the minority opinion in fact: the summary notes that "most theologians" agree that this is a "non-infallible" document.
4) The article is many pages long; but next the (rather obscure) author - Brian Harrison, O.S. - wants to simply dismiss "theology," and theologians, and go then go to the bishops. Yet? The bishops in turn defer explicitly to things that are "theologically certain."
5) Our obcure and questionable author next, takes statements by Bishops Senestrey for example, incorrectly. As when Senestrey begins to suggest that extending infalliblity too far, too strictly, would be "going too far."
Therefore? For these few preliminatry and then countless other reasons, to long to narrate here? We would have to respectfully disagree with your and Mr. Harrison's assertion that the Church regards Humanae Vitae as "infallible," and "Ex Cathedra."
In point of fact, your article itself admits that the bulk of the religious community and of specifically Catholic authorities, do not regard your source, extending "infallibility" to Humanae Vitae, to be credible.
With all due respect, there are countless problems with your representation of this article on Humanae Vitae, quoted from EWTN, as firmly asserting/proving that this document was intended to be fully "infallible," and/or Ex Cathedra.
Among other problems?
1) The published summary of this article, is not from an infallible source; it is from EWTN, which is no longer directly affiliated with the Church, but has a secular/lay board of directors.
2) Even as quoted in the EWTN site, the article itself explicitly presents the infallibility question not as fact, but as a "thesis."
3) And? It is explicitly a thesis offered as the minority opinion in fact: the summary notes that "most theologians" agree that this is a "non-infallible" document.
4) The article is many pages long; but next the (rather obscure) author - Brian Harrison, O.S. - wants to simply dismiss "theology," and theologians, and go then go to the bishops. Yet? The bishops in turn defer explicitly to things that are "theologically certain."
5) Our obcure and questionable author next, takes statements by Bishops Senestrey for example, incorrectly. As when Senestrey begins to suggest that extending infalliblity too far, too strictly, would be "going too far."
Therefore? For these few preliminatry and then countless other reasons, to long to narrate here? We would have to respectfully disagree with your and Mr. Harrison's assertion that the Church regards Humanae Vitae as "infallible," and "Ex Cathedra."
In point of fact, your article itself admits that the bulk of the religious community and of specifically Catholic authorities, do not regard your source, extending "infallibility" to Humanae Vitae, to be credible.
4.2.2012 | 11:53pm
edmond says:
Quentan-This comes late in the day since I have been out of wi-fi for a week. But between what theologians say and what the pope states as ex cathedra, I do not have a difficulty with, I choose tho belive the latter. The "bulk" of religious community (wherever they are) do not have the credibility required. Vos populi is NEVER vox Dei. Historically, they were the same "bulk" that demanded for Christ to be crucified.
4.5.2012 | 3:46am
dan says:
We all will seriously have to consider other options. There exists no thing, act or idea that is innately offensive. People decide to take offense. Humans judge. Murder in the animal kingdom is not only considered ‘natural’ (by humans), but is encouraged by human efforts to preserve ‘endangered’ predators. We are taught that the “murder’ of humans is abhorrent, yet nations engage in military murder every day. We even celebrate the ‘hero’ who killed mercilessly within the context of ‘war’. The construct that allows our ‘consciences’ to resolve this obvious hypocrisy is the judgement of ‘innocence’ and ‘guilt’
Think for a moment: if your worldview saw that global peace-order-happiness and human progress was dependent upon a god-free, secular system that would equalize prosperity and lift billions from suffering...wouldn't you be a little miffed with people who stubbornly insisted on an old system based on Judeo-Christian values and an unequal worldview that accepted unequal results?
Modern progressives are as close as they have ever come (in America) to really taking us down the path of their god-free utopia. Do not expect them to be civil. Civility is a spiritual expectation. And they are too close to their goals.