Video
Twitter
RSS Feed
A more civil discourse: idealistic pragmatism
FAITH IN ACTION
By Katherine Marshall
Political discourse these days seems more fitted to Halloween than All Saints Day. Angels and devils, witches and shamans. Rancid prose. We all wonder and worry at the nastiness that shows up in political campaign ads, the polarized news outlets, and beyond.
Yet much as we yearn for civil discourse, we need to recognize that this strain of vitriol is, and has been, very much part of the American scene. Commentator Bill Moyers recently observed: "I would say it's more deranged than delirious, and definitely not un-American. Those crackpots on the right praying for Obama to die and be sent to hell -- they're the warp and woof of home-grown nuttiness. So is the creature from the Second Amendment who showed up at the President's rally armed to the teeth. He's certainly one of us. Red, white, and blue kooks are as American as apple pie and conspiracy theories."
A kind of road rage seems to have taken over. Anyone with a differing opinion is demonized. But is there another way? Surely a more civil discourse and reasoned ethics is as deeply part of the American tradition.
I had the good fortune this week to be a fly on the wall at a phenomenon that tackles tough issues of ethical principles and choices in a different way. Sitting in on a weekly "Ethics Consult" at the Chicago Medical School, I witnessed a passionate and reasoned effort to deal with situations that present ethical choices. Every week, one or more physicians present a case that they see as having difficult ethical elements.
I was a privileged observer, invited because I had lectured earlier in the day, at the invitation of Dr. Mark Siegler, a renowned medical ethics scholar. Mark established the consult and moderates it. The details are confidential but I have his agreement that I can share my impressions. The day I participated, the issues turned around organ transplant choices, care of a very sick infant, and treatment of a difficult and homeless patient.
The scene: a room with about 50 people, most in white coats. Constant eruption of buzzing demands from pagers as doctors responded to urgent calls (they left the room and quickly returned). The consult started with someone reading a short presentation of the situation, followed by an intense, engaged, and caring discussion of the issues and choices. Technical, medical exchanges were very much at the fore. The issues were real and immediate; decisions were in the offing.
What struck me most forcibly was that this discourse was serious, engaged and respectful. People listened to each other. They were asking for help and listening to a wide range of suggestions, not shyly or cagily advanced, but put forth in clear and opinionated terms. People asked questions to understand the cases better. These were tough issues that can be seen in different ways, but these doctors had to make a choice. They had no way to duck the matter; the responsibility lay on their shoulders. They listened to others' advice but made their decisions alone after they left the room.
Everyone learns from the process. And at the end of the two-hour meeting, the papers outlining the cases are collected (so nothing leaks) and everyone leaves, rushing to their next obligation.
I came away with two thoughts.
The first is that the ethics consult formula could and should have much wider application. I can readily imagine it at the World Bank or the United Nations Security Council or Judge Goldstone's commission on Gaza. People who are grappling with complex ethical choices need a safe, demanding, and respectful space to thrash out the issues and options.
And second, the kind of discourse I was privileged to witness among deeply engaged and committed doctors is what we need in the public policy sphere. It's about facts first, about curiosity and a readiness to listen. It's about hearing different views. It's about a willingness to change opinion and then take responsibility. It's an idealistic pragmatism that is surely as much part of the American tradition as mud-slinging invective.
And it's about realizing that ethics, whether inspired by the theological principles of love, or by a physician's determination to help people, is about real choices nuanced by daily realities, more than absolutes and unbending principles.
Katherine Marshall is a senior fellow at Georgetown's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, a Visiting Professor, and a senior adviser for the World Bank.
By Katherine Marshall |
November 2, 2009; 8:26 AM ET
| Category:
Faith in Action
Save & Share:
Previous: John Brown's disobedience |
Next: "Love the alien as yourself"
Posted by: ccnl1 | November 4, 2009 6:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39
O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65
It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5
Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. - 9:28
Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29 (another source: ) The unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell. (another source: ) Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.
continued below:
Posted by: ccnl1 | November 4, 2009 6:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41
O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73
Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed. - 9:111
Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers....
As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish. He will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble their state; He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them. - 10:4-15
Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell. - 33:60
Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. - 41:14
When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.
Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5
Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25
Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29
Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. - 66:9
The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. - 98:51
Fight them so that Allah may punish them at your hands, and put them to shame. (verse cited in Newsweek 2/11/02)
-------
Posted by: ccnl1 | November 4, 2009 6:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"A kind of road rage seems to have taken over. Anyone with a differing opinion is demonized. But is there another way? Surely a more civil discourse and reasoned ethics is as deeply part of the American tradition."
Hooray! Why can't we just talk with people we don't agree with? We might even learn something. These days, people often don't even bother to listen to each other, they are so busy hashing out what they are going to shout next. The whole "town hall" side-show took this to a new level of stupidity.
Even if you are firmly convinced that you are right, and no one can teach you anything on whatever the topic under discussion is, what is the harm in listening? Why not at least TRY to understand another point of view. It's not a sign of weakness, rather it's a mark of strength.
And if, God help you, you change your mind, that's great! It means you learned something. This is not something to be feared. It's not flip-flopping to revise your view of the world, it's a mark of an active, involved mind.
Can we comment on the topic people, instead of just copying-and-pasting or expounding on our hobby-horses? Civil discourse, it's not just for Canadians any more.
Posted by: gimpi | November 4, 2009 5:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Why Islam is evil!!!
Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
This agenda continues as shown by the massacre in Mumbai, the assassinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.
And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.
Current crises:
The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.
Posted by: ccnl1 | November 3, 2009 11:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Islam is certainly a force to be reckoned with, not because it is evil—it’s not—but because Muslims are not adverse to using compulsion when they feel threatened.
In contrast traditional Christianity—especially Georgetown’s brand of liberal Catholicism-- seems to operate under an invisible death wish: beset by militant atheists, left wing seculars, the right wing Jewish lobby and the far right remnants of Northern Irish Paisley Presbyterians (where Dawkins’ ‘intellectual’ predecessors are) and unable (or unwilling) to defend itself.
Considering the above I find that the Post should be featuring the above article the height of hypocrisy. Publish a rabid rant by Dick Dawkins, the potty-mouthed professor, and afterwards present an article calling for pragmatism and courtesy in public dealings. Oh yes! How consistent! But tell me, Professor Marshall, did you even bother to protest when Waco-- whoops! WaPo earlier featured such offensive bigotry?
Posted by: Mary_Cunningham | November 3, 2009 3:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
One of Jesse Jackson's favorite quotes (which obviously he did not follow) is:
"There is too much intercourse, without discourse." i.e. rational talk/pragmatism is good for in any pursuit or project.
Of course with respect to Islam, there can be no rational discourse/pragmatism because their operating manual aka the koran does not allow it.
Posted by: ccnl1 | November 2, 2009 4:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Civil discourse with Muslims can begin after the following passages are deleted from the koran: (until then, no Muslim can be trusted)
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.
..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43
If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. - 3:157-8
You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71
Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74
Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76
But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89
Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14
O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54