Deseret News | 'Grammar' of civil society made up of civility, manners

Reader comments
'Grammar' of civil society made up of civility, manners

Indeed! | 12:58 a.m. Sept. 20, 2009

Don’t agree with you on many subjects Mr. Cannon, but I’m with you on this one.

One of the reasons we’re such a divided nation is that we shout at and disrespect each other rather than converse with mannered civility and any sense of empathy. The privilege of disagreement is ours, but its expression should be circumspect.

Timj | 5:03 a.m. Sept. 20, 2009

Thank you for an enlightened letter.
It's not the words of Wilson that disturb me--it's where he said it. It's simply not appropriate behavior to say something like that, that loudly, when someone is giving a speech. It's unfortunate that many people, never having grown past middle-school-maturity, support such rudeness.

Karma | 8:19 a.m. Sept. 20, 2009

The last statement is the law of karma. But when a President stands and baldface lies to the nation, what to do, what to do. Can't let it pass. Somehow, we can believe, Joe Wilson will be ok, if he breaks the rules of polite society in the service of truth.

Comments continue below

Roland Kayser | 8:42 a.m. Sept. 20, 2009

One of my favorite pastimes is to read these forums. Liberals and conservatives go back and forth, calling each other names, and then accusing the other side of being name callers. This editorial is absolutely correct. Let's tone down the volume and discuss our differences civily. We might even get to understnd each other's positions, even though we disagree.

Jud | 9:14 a.m. Sept. 20, 2009

Interesting. The whole plot of "Emma" turns on Emma's public insult of a friend. Austen really makes you feel the consequences of uncivil behavior. Everybody ought to read that book -- it would have a nice effect on our civilization.

Anonymous | 9:29 a.m. Sept. 20, 2009

If we want a civil society need to get rid of Beck, Rush, and the like... I personally blame all this on their polarizing divisiveness.

RE: Anonymous | 11:38 a.m. Sept. 20, 2009

I acknowledge your opinion of conservative talk radio being divisive but do you also know names like Oberman, Moore, and Franken?

Speech | 12:55 p.m. Sept. 20, 2009

I too think we should limit the speech of those "polarizing" nuts. It is truely unfortunate that we have the Constitution that allows them to speak. The same way it allows Moveon to speak. I guess we will all have to listen to both sides, civilly, and decide what makes sense. It is also unfortunate that we cannot just listen to those in political office and believe that what they tell us is true. I work with criminals, and would be a fool to believe the first thing I was told. It takes work, and information from multiple viewpoints to get as close to the actual events as possible. Without many opinions, and data, we would truely be unable to make informed decisions.

hbeckett | 2:17 p.m. Sept. 20, 2009

thank you for your thoughts and expressions.

Silver Grey | 2:40 p.m. Sept. 20, 2009

Funny how Joe Cannon quotes scripture -"do unto others". I was there when Mr. Cannon shut off the microphones in his capacity as Chairman of the Utah Republican Party when he didn't like what others had to say -not about him- but about a political issue. I'm sure civility is alive and well in places such as China and Cuba. In this country we are allowed to disagree, criticize, gripe, yell and otherwise show our displeasure with anyone, even the president. God Bless America and FREE SPEECH.

Ugandahuman | 3:57 p.m. Sept. 20, 2009

Silver Grey...you make a good point. However, in these times too often "Free Speech" expressions are disrespectful, rude, divisive and/or profanity laden. Freedom is not diluted by being civil, respectful of and polite to others. Sorry, but a shout-out during a speech by the President of the United States by a member of Congress is never appropriate. That is true regardless of whether or not you voted for the man.

Anonymous | 4:21 p.m. Sept. 20, 2009

Thanks to the prior administration, our country is in a heck of a mess. We need to work together to clean up that mess. That's not going to happen if those on the far-right try to shout down and/or try to block anything that doesn't tie directly to how they think the country should be ruled (and they fail to reaize that the people of the United States rejected their proposals and positions in the last election).

President Obama's door has been open to the Republicans from the beginning, but they've refused to work in a bipartisan manner -- they'd rather just obstruct and vilify. Sad.

Re: Ugandahuman | 9:53 p.m. Sept. 20, 2009

Well said. Perhaps a good way to look at the issue is that it's not enough to say what you want to say today. People with other viewpoints aren't just here today---they'll be around tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, and if we're to get anywhere it's necessary to be able to maintain a civil conversation over the long haul.

BH | 10:31 p.m. Sept. 20, 2009

Is "Karma" suggesting then, that the ends justifies the means?

We must maintain our freedom of speach. That is critical to what the U.S.A. represents. People like Beck, Franken, Coulter, and Oberman need to be entitled to their right to free speach. In fact, if you look at the history of this great country, such freedom of speech has been critical to our independence and freedoms.

But what gives these people power is the size of audience. So then, it forces the question: Who is the most uncivil? Those that speak anger of others, or those that flock around to feast on the the venom that is spewed about?

I maintain that it is up to the American people to disarm uncivil discussion. We must be wise enough to discern between that which is nothing more than words intended to inflame, and those that are important to maintaining our freedoms. Then we must be disciplined enough to cast one out and grasp the other. And that is the real test of our nation's civility.

RE: Anonymous and Speech | 10:37 p.m. Sept. 20, 2009

Does anyone REALLY believe the answer is limiting the FREEDOM of SPEECH of others we disagree with?

The TRUE answer is us becoming a more honest and moral and religious people.

The answer to civility lies not in depriving people of thier rights, but in improving character.

Golden Rule | 8:27 a.m. Sept. 21, 2009

You are referring to the Golden Rule, Joe, that was given by the Man who turned over the moneychangers' tables in the Temple twice, chsed them out with a whip and who called the rulers of his people "Hypocrites!"

Amen | 4:34 p.m. Sept. 21, 2009

Joe Wilson showed courage? Hardly. Mr. Wilson is a week-kneed pseudo-patriot. Mr. Wilson joined the Army Reserve in 1972 to avoid service in Vietnam. This was a common strategy for draft-dodgers. He continued into the National Guard, retiring as a Colonel. And never serving in battle or in the Real Military. He's not the only elected representative or senator that avoided service to our country. But, maybe he's the most prominent at the moment due to his outburst.

His biogrqaphy says: "Throughout his life, Joe has also had a tremendous passion to serve his country as a member of the United States Armed Forces". Unfortunately Joe decided NOT to serve his country, but to avoid service by using the safe haven of the reserves and national guard to stay home, get benefits and even a retirement.

As has been stated, the easiest way to get 15 seconds of fame is to be rude. Mr. Wilson did just that. Joe Wilson is a poor voice for the Republican Party. We can do better, much better.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.