-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Catholocism and Civility
- Thread starter nddtrader
- Start date
As a former Catholic, I'm going have to go with "Yes".
What's your point?
What's your point?
The question arises from an experience I recently had attending a mandatory racial sensitivity training session. The rules of engagement required all participants to abide by two basic rules:
1. We are obligated to respect one another.
2. We are obligated to respect one another's opinions.
As the session progresses one of the black participants proclaimed his belief that all whites are inherently racist. When I took issue with the idea, I was basically told that I was violating the rules of engagement.
Now I can understand the need to respect the individual and his/he right to embrace and express an idea, but the notion that civility also requires me to grant unconditional respect to every idea that might be expressed seems a bit much. Instead of discussing the merit or demerit of ideas, it seems those designing and running these sessions are purposefully or inadvertently touting the idea that one's brains should be checked at the door.
How can one respect an idea that he/she knows to be a falsehood?
1. We are obligated to respect one another.
2. We are obligated to respect one another's opinions.
As the session progresses one of the black participants proclaimed his belief that all whites are inherently racist. When I took issue with the idea, I was basically told that I was violating the rules of engagement.
Now I can understand the need to respect the individual and his/he right to embrace and express an idea, but the notion that civility also requires me to grant unconditional respect to every idea that might be expressed seems a bit much. Instead of discussing the merit or demerit of ideas, it seems those designing and running these sessions are purposefully or inadvertently touting the idea that one's brains should be checked at the door.
How can one respect an idea that he/she knows to be a falsehood?
I would like to talk to you about this, and I'm also a bit hesitant to do it in this DIR location -- out of respect for forum rules. I'm thinking it may be best to move the thread.
How does Catholicism fit into the situation? Typically civility IMO is more of a matter of etiquette, rather than a theological or religious practice type of matter.
Are you Catholic? Or, is this event you were referring to a Catholic event?
I don't see civility as requiring that someone accept something one believes to be wrong, whether in terms of being inaccurate, or even in terms of being harmful or hateful. To me civility is more like not jumping down someone's throat when you think they are wrong.
To me it is more like treating other person with respect, even if one sees that person to be in error -- not necessarily holding the belief to be equally true as all other beliefs. As far as I can remember from Catholic school following one's conscience meant following what one really understood to be accurate and right. One needs to use one's own brain in the process of doing that, IMO.
In the situation that you described so far, I would say there is a civil response, and one that is not.
IMO, a civil response allows for disagreement between people, without personal attack on the other person.
How does Catholicism fit into the situation? Typically civility IMO is more of a matter of etiquette, rather than a theological or religious practice type of matter.
Are you Catholic? Or, is this event you were referring to a Catholic event?
I don't see civility as requiring that someone accept something one believes to be wrong, whether in terms of being inaccurate, or even in terms of being harmful or hateful. To me civility is more like not jumping down someone's throat when you think they are wrong.
To me it is more like treating other person with respect, even if one sees that person to be in error -- not necessarily holding the belief to be equally true as all other beliefs. As far as I can remember from Catholic school following one's conscience meant following what one really understood to be accurate and right. One needs to use one's own brain in the process of doing that, IMO.
In the situation that you described so far, I would say there is a civil response, and one that is not.
IMO, a civil response allows for disagreement between people, without personal attack on the other person.
Last edited:
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Not all ideas are equal. In catholic theology, error has no rights. What that means is that one can be cordial, civil, and [or] consider what others have to say, but ultimately, some ideas have no weight in human endeavors. In fact, you don't really need to be catholic or religious to see this.
In short, you may have broken the rules of engagement simply because you "took issue" with the idea. One can respectfully disagree and still maintain the rules of engagement. As 4consideration noted, it's an etiquette, approach, attitude, thing.
In short, you may have broken the rules of engagement simply because you "took issue" with the idea. One can respectfully disagree and still maintain the rules of engagement. As 4consideration noted, it's an etiquette, approach, attitude, thing.