Forgive me, Hugo Black.  I was wrong.

Tucson City Council uses "civility code" to shut off citizen from speaking; Apparently, the citizen was reading from a court decision, and, conveniently, the city council was able to use the civility code to protect one of its own from having to answer any uncomfortable questions.



I've never been a First Amendment absolutist, but when the powers that be can read the First Amendment as permitting porn in libraries and restricting political speech, something has to give.

Civility.

At Theology for Dummies, the latest kerfuffle involves "civility" and whether it is obscene to call someone a "silly ass."

On the former, there is this interesting call for balance by Msgr. Charles Pope.  After citing some seemingly intemperate language by Christ and the Apostles, Msgr. Pope observes:

Now, most of the passages above would violate modern norms about civil discourse. Are they sinful? They are God’s word! And yet, they seem rather shocking to modern ears. Imagine getting into your time machine and going to hear Jesus denounce the crowds and calling them children of the devil. It really blows a 21 Century mind


I want to suggest to you that these sorts of quotes go a long way to illustrate the cultural dimension of what it means to be civil. The bottom line is that there is a great deal of variability in what people consider civil discourse. In some cultures there is a greater tolerance for anger. I remember dating an Italian girl for a brief time back in college. I remember being at her house and how she and her mother could really go at it with a heated debate (usually in Italian – Mama Mia!). But no sooner had they very intensely argued over some particular point, say of preparing the meal, than they were just fine, as if nothing had happened. Angry discourse was more “normal” for them.Even in this country there are regional differences about civility. In New York and Boston, edgy comments and passionate interruptive debate are common. But in the upper Midwest and parts of the Deep South conversation is more gentle and reserved.

At the time of Jesus angry discourse was apparently quite “normal” for, as we see, Jesus himself engages in a lot of it, even calling them names like, “Hypocrites.” “Brood of Vipers,” “Liars,” “Wicked” etc. Yet, the same scriptures that record these facts about Jesus also teach that he never sinned. Hence, at that time such terms were not considered sinful to utter.

Jesus also engaged in prophetic actions like overturning the tables in the temple courts. No one said he’d done wrong, they just wondered where he got the authority to do this (cf Mark 11:28). In that culture prophets did things like this. No one liked it, but just like our culture tolerates some degree of civil disobedience, even reveres it, Jesus’ culture expected things like this from prophets.

Careful -Now be careful here. I am not saying it is OK for us to talk like this because Jesus did. We do not live then, we live now, and in our culture such dialogue is almost never acceptable. There ARE cultural norms we have to respect to remain in the realm of Charity. Exactly how to define civility in every instance is not always clear. An old answer to these hard to define things is “I know when I see it.” So perhaps it is more art than science to define civility. But clearly, we tend today, to prefer a gentler discourse.

On the other hand we also tend to be a little thin-skinned and hyper-sensitive. And the paradoxical result of insisting on greater civility is that we are so easily “outraged” (one of the more overused words in English today). We take offense where none is intended and we easily presume that the very act of disagreeing is somehow arrogant, intentionally hurtful or even hateful. We seem so easily provoked and quick to be offended. All of this escalates anger further and charges of hate and intolerance go back and forth where there is simply sincere disagreement.

Balance - The Scriptures give us two balanced reminders. First that we should speak the truth in love, and with compassion and understanding. But it also portrays to us a time when people had thicker skin and were less hyper-sensitive and anxious in the presence of disagreement. We can learn from both biblical traditions. The biblical formula seems to be “clarity” with “charity,” the truth with a balance of toughness and tenderness. Perhaps an old saying comes to mind: Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don’t say it mean.

As for the latter, we have to remember that the use of the term "ass" comes from "asinine" which has nothing to do with the body part [or, in light of the way that "asinine" is spelled, the animal, although some etymological sources do make that connection.]

Asinine and "ass" as in the term "silly ass" - to disappoint the thin-skinned people described by Msgr. Pope derive from the perfectly non-obscene Greek word "synesis."  "Synesis" means "the habit of right judgment." The contrary of synesis is "asynesis." (See Aquinas Commentary on the Nichomachean Ethics, Book 6, Lecture IX.)   People who lack the habit of right judgment, i.e., people who make poor and foolish judgments are described as "asynetos," or in English "asinine" from which we derive terms like "ass" and "silly ass."

You can see this etymology in Charles Dickens' classic use of the the phrase "the law is a ass - an idiot" by Mr. Bumbles in Oliver Twist.  Bumples properly correlates "ass" with "idiot" which connotes "asinine" - one "s" - not the body part, which would be "arse", or the animal.

The tendency we thin-skinned moderns have to associate "asinine" with the body part reflects our linguistic tendency to break words down to similar sounding roots - "eggcorns" - and then conjugate from those roots, whether they are imagined or real.  Although it may be better characterized as a collision between "folk etymology" and "back formation."

In any event, "asinine," like the word "niggardly," has nothing to do with the faux-roots that cause such controversy among thin-skinned moderns.