Words Have Consequences

The tragic event of Saturday in Tucson, which has led to the deaths of six people, and the wounding of 12 others, including a sitting member of Congress (Gabrielle Giffords), has shaken the nation.  We don't know if Rep. Giffords will recover, or if she does, whether she'll be able to return to Congress.  We keep her and the others affected in our prayers.

This event has not only caught our attention, and it has spurred a national conversation about the words we use and their consequences.  It has become increasingly clear that the nation's rhetoric has become increasingly uncivil and even violent.  When it comes to politics, it seems that anything goes.  Pundits right and left spew angry words at one another, and the nation has begun to divide up, depending on who they listen to on the radio or the TV. 

Now, the United States has a rich tradition of free speech, which I support, but as Paul makes so clear --

"All things are lawful," but not all things are beneficial.  "All things are lawful," but not all things build up. (1 Corinthians 10:23). 

 I realize that Paul is speaking here of dietary restrictions and not speech, but I think the meaning is clear enough.  We may have the freedom to say whatever we like, but those words, especially words spoken in anger, can have consequences -- even violent consequences.

Did Sarah Palin's tasteless ad "targeting" certain members of Congress lead to this shooting?  In and of itself, no.  I doubt that the former Governor was wishing death upon them, but when we use words and images of violence then some may take this much more literally than intended.  The same is true of those folks who are praying their "imprecatory prayer," which quotes from Psalm 109:8 -- "May his days be few; may another seize his position."  Are these folks praying for President Obama to die?  I doubt that most are praying for death, or even contemplating ways in which this would take place.  They're just hoping that in 2012 someone else will be elected, but if you're going to use this verse then perhaps you should pay attention to the words that follow:  "May his children be orphans, and his wife a widow."   This isn't a prayer for electoral change, it's a prayer for vengeance.

So, here we are, living in a time when the rhetoric has gone beyond being uncivil.  It has moved past angry rhetoric.   The rhetoric, especially on the right, but not just the right, has turned toward the violent.  We can have a discussion about the size of government, whether or not it's too big or not.  We can have a discussion about what kind of health care we should have in our land, but when we start moving toward violent imagery and calls for overthrowing the government, then we've moved past what is acceptable. 

Good people of good will need to step up and say, enough is enough.  Let's bring the level of rhetoric down several notches, and start working toward the common good.  

Since I began with scripture, I'll end with scripture.  

7 People can tame and already have tamed every kind of animal, bird, reptile, and fish. 8 No one can tame the tongue, though. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we both bless the Lord and Father and curse human beings made in God’s likeness. 10 Blessing and cursing come from the same mouth. My brothers and sisters, it just shouldn’t be this way!  (James 3:7-10 Common English Bible).

True Conversation

It might be in the church parking lot, the school yard, on blogs and Facebook, but wherever they occur conversations take place.  Sometimes they are quite benign and maybe even uplifting.  But they can also be destructive.  When misunderstandings occur or miscommunication occurs, mistrust often emerges.  Since we're in a political season, where attack ads dominate the scene, and creation of mistrust has become a political art form, it maybe wise to stop and think about the nature of conversation, especially in relationship to the question of trust.  

I will be writing a review shortly of Martin Marty's new book from Eerdmans entitled Building Cultures of Trust.  Marty is a wise elder statesman, whose Sightings postings generally appear on this site each Monday.  I have high regard for him as a historian and as a Christian sage.  So, when Marty speaks, I tend to listen.

A central theme in this book that focuses on building cultures of trust is the way way we communicate (or miscommunicate).  Although he uses the science/religion axis as a key analogy, it is clear that the points made in the book cover all forms of conversation.  Thus, in this regard, he speaks of true conversation in this way:

In true conversation, one listens (picture the scientist hearing the religionist) just as one speaks (imagine the same scientist doing the talking as the religionist listens); in that interchange, ideas flow and confidence has a chance to build.  If conversation involves one partner always having to await time to speak, bursting unbidden on the speech of someone else, then true conversation is not occurring and cannot occur.  The fundamentalist in religion or in science has no patience for hearing the other and has the impulse only to denounce the other.  However, the "other," in the act of conversing, wants to inform and educate him-or herself.  The good conversationalist helps the other organize and assess reality.  He may often include invitations in conversation:  bids to have the other join him and his friends in designated places.  Conversations, as everyone knows, go on at all levels, whether about grocery lists, the prospect of removing a wisdom tooth, facing prostate cancer, batting averages, or the ordination of homosexuals to the clergy. (Building Cultures of Trust., p. 128)

The value of such conversations is that they can, when engaged in with open hearts and minds, the conversation partners into new levels of engagement.  Indeed, Marty suggests that so-called "trivial conversation" can help set the stage for building trust.  Whenever we engage in trust building efforts, we are risking ourselves.  When one side insists that it has the truth and won't listen to the other, trust cannot be built. 

So, what is the "moral" of this story for us?  I think we might try to have a conversation -- a civil conversation -- about finding ways of communicating effectively with each other.  I know that it is easy to engage in one-sided conversations (read arguments).  I've engaged in them quite often.  I'm a rather opinionated chap, which is in part why I set up this blog, so I could share my opinions on matters of theology, politics, etc.  But, hopefully it is more than a place to voice opinions.  Hopefully, this can be a place where a conversation can develop.  I may set things out in stark terms to get the conversation going, but hopefully we can use this as a way of entering into a fruitful conversation. and not simply a series of tirades! 

Bernard Salt: half man, half ideologue

Today I was listening to demographer Bernard Salt on radio 2UE (no link), celebrating the ever-expanding diversification of Sydney.

Surnames reflect changing suburbia

Meet the Patels, who have overtaken Smiths as the most common surname in Parramatta.

And in Cabramatta you'll find the Nguyens, Trans and Huynhs, while at Lakemba Kahn and Islam are among the top surnames.

In Parramatta, the geographical heart of Sydney, Smith and Jones don't even make it into the top 20. The most common family names are Patel, Singh and Chen.

Salt says that immigrants congregate in areas because of: shared language, ethnic food shops, and being close to family and friends. He says this is good and natural.

Does Salt apply the same beliefs to white people? If he did, he would acknowledge that the ever-expanding wave of diversity continually encroaching into white areas is bad and unnatural for whites. Indeed it is, which is why they move out.

But does Salt mention this downside of diversity? Nope, apparently we're meant to celebrate and enjoy the limitless diversification.

Bernard's brain is a house divided. He must think whites are a different species.

And later I found a previous 2UE story on the introduction of quiet carriages onto Queensland Rail, which Bernald Salt welcomes. And I have to agree, it's long overdue. I've lost count of the number of times I've wanted to throttle noisy and rude people on the trains, it's an everyday occurrence these days.

But that's where the common sense ends for Salt. He then notes that Japan has even more enlightened rules of civility that frown upon anyone who even uses a mobile phone on a train. He suggests that is due to Japan's higher population density. Apparently we will become uber civilised when the population reaches critical mass.

Alas, it's not a convincing argument. What's more convincing is that Japan's racial and ethnic homogeneity provides a higher degree of empathy and care factor, which is fertile soil for rules of civility. In diversity, however, empathy and authority do not so readily cross ethnic boundaries.

So does Salt consider the racial factor? Nope, that part of his brain is cryogenically frozen by the ideology of non-discrimination. So I wouldn't bet on Salt's demographic nirvana being realised anytime soon.

File under: part man, part freak.

Society's oversaturation of sex

Kate Horowitz, Sex, I'm sick of it

Have you ever seen one of those couples in a park on a Sunday afternoon rolling around on top of each other like it's no one's business? ...

Such a display is a product of society's oversaturation of sex and all things related to it...

It worries me that those sexually explicit billboards down William Street may actually cause more car accidents than sell whatever product it is that has to do with a semi-nude woman riding a motorbike...

People will say to me the times are a-changing, we can't pretend sex doesn't exist like some 1950s family sitcom. But it's not that. I just want to go out for a coffee and not have to know what every woman and man, or man and man, or woman and woman, or two women and a man, or a man and a woman, a goat, a video camera and a bunch of sex toys do in their bedrooms/ in an alleyway/ online/ or anywhere else.

I don't care what people do in private, but I agree the public space has been over-sexualised. Whilst I enjoy a healthy appetite for arousal, I want control over when and where that happens. Seeing half-naked billboards everywhere is annoying, distracting and tiresome. And the leggings/tights fashion, whilst initially quite exciting, is now just annoying arousal overload. Leggings are not pants (content warning), so cover up.