Being a lifelong Southerner, I know a thing or two about civility. Here in the South, you can be taken apart, bit by bit, without ever feeling any anger directed toward you. The key is the phrase, “bless your heart.” Whenever a Southerner wants to insult you, it will always be in a civil tone and usually followed by this phrase. For example:
“You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed are you? Bless your heart.”
Or, if you’re speaking about someone else, you might say:
“She has a face only a mother could love. Bless her heart.”
While the first part of the sentence may seem harsh, the magic Southern phrase tends to blunt the impact. It’s usually said with a wry smile, and sometimes a pat on your arm or shoulder.
“That was terrible for you! Bless your heart!” you’ll be told, as the speaker shakes her head slightly, smiles a bit and pats you on the hand. You’ve been patronized, dismissed, or insulted, but somehow, you feel better. That’s the charm of Southern civility — they kill you, but they do it softly, and with a gentle smile.
The religious right, perhaps taking its cue from George Barna’s book UnChristian, which calls for conservative Christians to be kinder, has currently adopted this strategy to soften their rough and often hateful rhetoric, especially toward gays and lesbians. The latest soft touch is something called “The Civility Project.” Founded by Republican Mark DeMoss, who worked as a volunteer for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, and Democrat Lanny Davis, a longtime Clinton adviser, the project seeks to “get Americans to agree to disagree without being disagreeable.”
Those who sign up for the project are asked to take a pledge:
I will be civil in my public discourse and behavior. I will be respectful of others whether or not I agree with them. I will stand against incivility when I see it.
In the toxic atmosphere of politics, this seems like a welcome change, but when you read deeper, you can practically hear both DeMoss and Davis ending each sentence with a half smile, a light touch, and a sweet, “Bless your heart.”
DeMoss’ first example of the incivility he sees in the world concerns the vandalism of some churches and temples after California voters passed Proposition 8, banning marriage equality for gays and lesbians. Interestingly, one of those churches vandalized was in San Francisco’s Castro District and was actually a gay-friendly church.
Perhaps DeMoss might want to point out the incivility of the hate crimes against gays and lesbians that have been on the rise since the passage of Prop 8. In California’s Santa Clara County, for instance, it was reported that violent crimes against gays and lesbians rose 15 percent in 2008. Santa Clara County District Attorney Jay Boyarsky noted,:
My belief from having done this work for many years is that surges in types of hate incidents are linked to the headlines and controversies of the day. Marriage equality and Proposition 8 have been in the news, and we have seen an increase in gay-bashing.
Certainly, some modicum of civility might temper violence on both sides of the issue – but DeMoss’ jumping right to the example of violence, allegedly carried out by the gay community after the Prop 8 vote, belies his real agenda here. Perhaps if the Mormon Church had been civil to gays and lesbians to begin with and not painted the community as godless heathens who deserve scorn and discrimination, some gays and lesbians would not have felt justified in taking out their anger and frustration in violent ways.
This is certainly not first time the gay community has been assaulted, both verbally and bodily, by those speaking in the name of religion. What shocks me is that the gay community hasn’t been more violent in its outrage. Instead, the community redoubles its efforts politically to get their issues passed despite the hateful rhetoric and outright lies heaped on by opponents. It’s kind of ridiculous to point to the lack of civility from the gay and lesbian community when they’ve been treated so poorly to begin with – and not just since the beginning of Prop 8, but for many, many years! After decades of being called sick, sinful, disordered, a threat to the family, and blamed for everything from hurricanes to droughts, you now expect the community to rush to answer your call to civility? Bless your heart, Mr. DeMoss!
It’s also telling when DeMoss gets more specific about his project:
“I decided to launch a project where I would talk not about unity, not about tolerance, not about getting along, not about compromise, but just about civility.”
So, really, what he’s asking for is exactly what “bless your heart” is all about – bigotry with manners. DeMoss has no intention of learning about the person on the other side of the issue. He’s not interested in tolerating them, or finding a place of common ground where there can be unity, or compromising on his principles, or even getting along – it’s simply about being polite to one another – to not yell at one another, but to still push our own agendas.
In short, DeMoss has no interest in dialogue. He has no interest in learning about what those who oppose him think or believe, or even how they arrived at that thought or belief. He just wants them to smile, slap him on the back, and get out of his way while he pursues his agenda. If they don’t, then he can paint them as the “uncivil” person or group who is obstructing his progress.
Well, bless your heart, Mr. DeMoss, but to move this country forward, we’ll need more than civility. I don’t want your civility – I want dialogue. Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hahn, in his book Living Buddha, Living Christ, says true dialogue only exists when both sides are willing to change – so openness and tolerance must be a part of true dialogue.
If we think we monopolize the truth and we still organize a dialogue, it is not authentic. We have to believe that by engaging in dialogue with the other person, we have the possibility of making a change within ourselves that we can become deeper.
This kind of dialogue is has absolutely nothing to do with civility – it has everything to do with trying to understand one another and become better people in the process. It has everything to do with being open and vulnerable with one another. It has everything to do with finding common ground and ways people with divergent views can come together in unity and find a way forward that benefits everyone involved. Will both sides have to give up some things to get there? Yes. Without a doubt. But, when both sides truly seek dialogue, Hahn says what they find is that through dialogue we begin to understand those on the other side and finally we truly learn what Jesus meant when he told us to love our enemies:
We have to understand why he is that way, how he has come to be like that, why he does not see things the way we do. Understanding a person brings us the power to love and accept him. And the moment we love and accept him, he ceases to be our enemy. To ‘love our enemy’ is impossible, because the moment we love him, he is no longer our enemy.
Civility alone means nothing. This kind of bigotry with manners will accomplish little. Bless their hearts for trying, though. Believe me, I’m all for civility but without dialogue, understanding, tolerance, unity, and an ability to be vulnerable, even with those who disagree with us, we will never find our way forward as a unified nation. As long as we continue to vilify one another – whether in a civil or violent manner – we will never reach a point of peace – either within ourselves or within our world.
