The article resonated with me, because it highlighted the hypocrisy of a government I happen to oppose. But I'm equally concerned about the way that messages come over from the other side. I was astonished at the number of people whose only enduring memory of Keating was his 'beastly' language - and, as we know, this is an issue for Latham that he's seen fit to make a commitment on.
So to church! I don't believe that most people believe the church has declined because young people want to be rude. But neither do I think that rudeness *attracts*. Being real, being authentic, sure - but above all, showing genuine caring - does. I get the idea that some people think they're being 'false' if their behaviour changes in church. They may use fewer swear words, that sort of thing. I remember a time when we were hearing a lot of obscenities amongst our contemporary church crowd. I think it was an attempt to maintain integrity, because they'd use the language elsewhere, and God's everywhere, right? But, to me it seemed 'false'; too self-conciously provocative. It's the intent that matters. And understanding the effect of the communication. Delicate language - 'weasel-words', if you like - can help people if their intent is understood on both sides. But if the object is to avoid addressing matters that need to be discussed, that's a problem. (I'm thinking of those teacher's report card comments that have been in the Herald's Column 8 lately. They could be sorted into both groups!) Showing genuine care involves practical courtesy. Words and actions are powerful and can be abused by the dominant and the oppressed alike. To be a 'safe place', church people of all backgrounds need to trust and to feel trusted. That's where church needs to differ from the adversarial, political scene (which thrives on difference and distrust). Maybe we *do* need a modern book of etiquette: one that explains where the different camps are coming from. Then the senders and receivers of communication can start to meet each other half way. David -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Niall McKay Sent: Saturday, 31 January 2004 14:58 To: Insights List Subject: politeness and civility hi all interesting comments on politeness and 'civility' (and nice?ness?) no wonder I get in trouble with my mother-in-law so much niall PS - its on the church list because I hear the 'we need to be more civil' and 'the young people are just rude' so often as the reason for the decline in the church... from the article http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/31/1075340877463.html Civility has a host of meanings, and generations often differ sharply in the way they interpret behaviour. No one would disagree that we should be kinder, and more considerate. But the one constant is that calls from the powerful for civility are usually made for a political purpose - one which it is not always easy to be polite about. ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
