We hear a lot about civil discourse, dialogue, and  discussion.  But whether it’s the selection of a Supreme Court justice, the pros and cons of the Iraq war, or spouses sorting out who washes the supper dishes, unfailingly polite exchanges are rare. Too often the conversations become intellectual wrestling matches rather than fruitful dialogues.

Discussions frequently devolve into arguments.  Parties don’t listen to each other. Instead they gather arguments point by point to refute the opposing position; they have already made up their minds.  Sometimes ideology or prejudice has solidified their positions.

Recently in Kentucky, an argument between friends over the war in Iraq ended with a fatal shooting. Douglas Moore shot Harold Smith once in the chest and Smith died at the scene. Police said that Moore acted in self-defense and did not arrest him at the Bull Creek Trade Center near
Prestonsburg where he and Smith each had booths. Admittedly, that’s an extreme example, but in most arguments there is more anger than reason, more heat than light.

Whether it’s friends, politicians or husbands and wives, arguers seem to have earplugs.  They don’t hear each other.  Having prejudged the issue as well as the “opponent,” their certitude is unwavering. Subtly and sometimes crudely they communicate to the other that not only her views, but she herself is unimportant.

Self-deprecating humor and attentive listening, even when we don't like what the other is saying, are much more productive.  In that way we show that our respect won't waver.  No matter how vehemently we disagree we can state our own position kindly.  There is nothing said that could not be said more gently.

There is a world of difference between, “# $ * &, you’re an imbecile to believe that.”  And, “I disagree, Joe. How about looking at it this way?” If the language is not respectful, the argument will teach us nothing; it will only create hostility.  There is wisdom in the ancient scripture, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger. (Pro. 15:1)

Who is wise? The Talmud asks. “One who learns from all,” it teaches.  Those in heated arguments have no possibility of such wisdom.  If we listen to the other carefully and with respect, we might learn something.

Eknath Easwaran, the Hindu spiritual writer and founder of a center for meditation in Berkeley, California said, “In many disagreements  … it is really not ideological differences that divide people. It is lack of respect, which is another way of saying a lack of love. Most disagreements do not even require dialogue; all that is necessary is a set of flash cards. If Romeo wants to make a point with Juliet, he may have elaborate intellectual arguments for buttressing his case, but while his mouth is talking away, his hand brings out a big card and shows it to Juliet: ‘I'm right.’ Then Juliet flashes one of hers: ‘You're wrong!’ You can use the same cards for all occasions, because that is all most quarrels amount to.

“What provokes people is not so much facts or opinions, but the arrogance of these flash cards. Kindness here means the generous admission -- not only with the tongue but with the heart -- that there is something in what you say, just as there is something in what I say. If I can listen to you with respect, it is usually only a short time before you listen with respect to me. Once this attitude is established, most differences can be made up. It may require a lot of hard work, but the problem is no longer insoluble.”

Eckard Tolle, author of “The Power of Now” said somewhere that we should embrace the competing narration. Instead of dismissing or ridiculing others' beliefs we should attempt to understand and ferret out the truth in them. Often we do not.  Instead we look for like-minded friends or fellow travelers who reinforce our pre-judgments. It’s easier to dismiss opposing views out of hand than to flush out their truth. We prefer to see things in black and white. Reality, however, is much more complicated and unfolds in high definition color.  We should be suspicious of bumper sticker clarity.

Some will say that respecting the competing narration implies a lack of conviction and passion for one’s position, but not necessarily.  We can calmly place our own beliefs in parentheses as we respectfully pay attention to the other point of view. Our convictions may or may not be modified by the discourse, but eventually after the discussion they can be re-concentrated with more focused energy. Civility does not mean emotional apathy or intellectual indifference.  No one has all the answers. A dose of humility might help refine our position.

When spouses have disagreements, familiarity makes it more complicated, but patience, respect and humility can work wonders. The poetic words of Saint Paul read at many a wedding are on target.  “Love is patient and kind…. It is not arrogant or rude…. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful.” (I Cor. 13:  4-5)

Easwaran would have us replace the word  “love” in that text with “respect.” If we do that, the Senate Judicial Committee, the negotiators with Iran and North Korea, and John Bolton at the UN would have exceedingly wise advice.

Everyone: lawmakers and homemakers, politicians and voters, citizens and the military need to be respected. We all need more light than heat -- more civil discourse and less hostile argument.

Daniel O’Rourke is a former Observer Clergy Columnist.  He’s a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University College, Fredonia. A mediator for the Center for Resolution and Justice, he lives in Cassadaga. His columns appear the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net