In the aftermath of the tragic shooting in Tucson, \u201ccivility\u201d is the word on everyone\u2019s lips. This is ironic when one considers that civility is nowhere to be found in anyone\u2019s actions. Each partisan faction is charging the other with hatred and violence. The rhetoric being bandied about is beyond ridiculous. Tom Lehrer once said, \u201cThere are those who do not love their fellow man and I hate people like that.\u201d Our elected officials are saying things that are absurdly similar, except they\u2019re saying them with a straight face. They scream \u201ccivility\u201d at the top of their lungs, but each demands it from the other with no signs of action on their own part.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s a clich\u00e9 that says that when one points a finger at another person, he has three fingers pointing back at him. Things get to be clich\u00e9s by being true. The Talmud tells us (Baba Metzia 59b) that one should not criticize others for faults one possesses himself. (In modern parlance, \u201cPeople who live in glass houses\u2026\u201d) But all that\u2019s being done is name-calling and finger-pointing. \u201cWhy can\u2019t you be civil?\u201d one political party charges. The other responds, \u201cI am civil! Why aren\u2019t you?\u201d It\u2019s absolutely laughable.<\/p>\n
Why don\u2019t people realize that it\u2019s possible to disagree \u2013 even on topics of great importance \u2013 and to still treat one another civilly? In Judaism, we have great precedence for this.<\/p>\n
The Talmud is replete with disputes between the disciples of Beit Hillel and those of Beit Shammai. They disagreed on some pretty significant points of law and their differences had many practical ramifications, but the Mishna tells us (Yevamot 1:4) that the students of Beit Hillel and those of Beit Shammai did not hesitate to rely upon one another. A member of each school knew that a student of the other wouldn\u2019t let him do something he himself considered impermissible, even if the other\u2019s point of view permitted it. They were civil to one another because they recognized that, differences aside, we\u2019re all on the same team.<\/p>\n
Another example \u2013 perhaps far more extreme \u2013 is that of Elisha ben Avuya, a scholar who suffered a traumatic experience and became the heretic known as \u201cAcheir\u201d (\u201cthe other\u201d). The Talmud in Chagiga (15a) tells us how Acheir was riding a horse on Shabbat with his former student Rabbi Meir walking beside him. Even though Acheir had lost his faith, he informed Rabbi Meir when they reached the Sabbath boundary. Yes, he had lost his faith, but he maintained his civility. Even a heretic can be a mentsch.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s okay to disagree. The question is, why are we disagreeing? The Mishna in Avot (5:20) tells us that there\u2019s a difference between sincere disagreements and those with ulterior motivations. The example the Mishna gives of a sincere disagreement is that between the students of Hillel and the students of Shammai. As we\u2019ve already noted, these two groups got along quite well despite their differences. This is because each faction recognized that they were both in pursuit of the truth.<\/p>\n
But what of the disagreements with ulterior motivations? The example the Mishna brings is Korach, who tried to overthrow Moses and seize leadership of the nation for himself. Rashi on Numbers 16:1 cites the Midrash detailing the pretexts Korach used to try to undermine Moses. Korach had prepared a list of questions such that, whatever Moses would answer, he could twist things to make Moses look bad. Korach could smile and say, \u201cCan\u2019t we all just get along?\u201d but his disagreement was insincere. Korach wasn\u2019t after the truth; he had an agenda. Nothing short of a coup would satisfy him. Such a person cannot be civil to those with another point of view.<\/p>\n
So why are we fighting? Do we want to discover the truth? Do we want what\u2019s best for our nation? For our communities? For our schools and our synagogues? Or do we come in with both barrels blazing, saying, \u201cIt\u2019s my way or the highway?\u201d If we are sincere in our disagreements, we\u2019re not threatened by hearing what others have to say. We only oppose civil discourse when it impedes fulfilling our pre-conceived idea of how things should be. (It\u2019s actually pretty arrogant for one to unilaterally decide on how the universe should be, without considering the input of others. No human is so wise as to have all the answers.)<\/p>\n
Civility starts within. If one really cares about an issue, being civil not only doesn\u2019t hurt the cause, it actually helps. Let\u2019s care less about what the other person is doing and worry more about ourselves. Civility can be contagious \u2013 it behooves all whose causes are sincere to be carriers. In the end, sincerity and respect will create an environment of civility. For those whose motivations are ulterior, nothing ever will.<\/p>\n
Rabbi Steven Burg is the Managing Director of the Orthodox Union<\/a>.\u00a0<\/em>To find out more about OU’s 2011 Convention Resolutions, including those issues relating to civility, please visit: OU Adopts Resolutions at 2011 Convention<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In the aftermath of the tragic shooting in Tucson, \u201ccivility\u201d is the word on everyone\u2019s lips. This is ironic when one considers that civility is nowhere to be found in anyone\u2019s actions. Each partisan faction is charging the other with hatred and violence. The rhetoric being bandied about is beyond ridiculous. Tom Lehrer once said,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":213,"featured_media":47834,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_cloudinary_featured_overwrite":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[97,118,89],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13418","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-community","category-convention","category-growth"],"yoast_head":"\n