[Peace-discuss] Cartoon hysteria

[C. G. Estabrook]

No, John, I don't agree that civility is "too euphemistic a
term": I think it's just euphemistic enough.  It covers sin
with smooth names. 

But I do agree that "a dearth of brotherly love" can have the
deleterious effects you describe.  But brotherly love (some
would now find the adjective exclusionary and therefore
uncivil, but I know you don't mean it that way) cannot be just
(a) an attitude or interior disposition, without practical
effect; or (b) good manners that prevent the denunciation of
immoral positions (e.g., Obama's, on the war).

Any love (or civility) that has the effect of lessening our
attention to torture and murder by the government we're
responsible for (or even to minor injustices by associations
we're members of) is factitious. --CGE 


---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 04:06:13 -0600
>From: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>  
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Cartoon hysteria   
>To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>,
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
>   At 11:22 PM 2/8/2006, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>     "Civility" is hardly the problem.  Discrimination
>     and
>     injustice -- whether in petty matters, as at WEFT,
>     or in
>     criminal matters, as in our government -- are
>     still
>     discrimination and injustice, even if done
>     civilly. 
>
>     To be concerned about civility rather than minor
>     or major
>     crimes is madness -- a massive exercise in missing
>     the point,
>     or what the Freudians calls displacement. 
>     Elsewhere it was
>     called straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
>     --CGE 
>
>   Leaving aside the fact that semantic sophistry also
>   frequently involves straining at gnats and
>   swallowing camels, I can concede that perhaps
>   "civility" was too euphemistic a term.  Nevertheless
>   a dearth of brotherly love can lead to incivility,
>   discrimination, and injustice both petty and
>   colossal, both local and global.  Shall we concern
>   ourselves only with symptoms, or can we proceed to
>   root causes?