MN Colleges and Religious Accommodation

I never thought that Minnesota would be such a hotbed of controversy, but here we are in the thick of things, again. The news this week has been about MN State Colleges proposing remodeling to install foot washing facilities for Muslim students. And, of course, there is tremendous debate about it.

As you might guess, there are comments from the legal side. (Will these accommodations open the door for demands of others? Will the lack of such foot washing stations open us up for lawsuits from people who injure themselves trying to wash feet in normal sinks, or from people who slip in the water mess on the floor from such a practice?).

There are comments from the financial side. (How much will this cost? What will future demands cost? What is the cost of not providing this accommodation?)

There are comments from the political side. (Does this violate separation of religion and state? Does this create unequal facilities for some? Does this consideration create a backlash that opens up debate around Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc. issues?)

But most importantly, there are comments! Opening discussion on all these fronts highlights the ethical issues that we must deal with - in societal, personal, and corporate circles as well as in others. Already I hear people dismissing the proposals - from one side or the other - rather than using this occasion to really examine the issues.

Yes, there are legal, financial, political, religious, and practical considerations. So let's embrace this opportunity for discussion. Say to yourself, "Starting With Me, this latest in a series of controversies around religious beliefs will be an opportunity to get to dig into the tough issues, rather than blow them off as just so much hype.

Ethics Forum: Diatribe or Discussion?

Sometimes and with some people, you can have serious, respectful discussions around differences in beliefs - even religion and politics (which common wisdom says to avoid). Other times, it's impossible. What's the difference?

Listen and you'll hear it. It has to do with inflammatory language. In those impossible moments, you will hear name calling, judgmental terms, sarcastic tones, negative characterizations and usually, raised voices. In the more constructive interactions you will hear open ended questions, a respectful tone, non-judgmental terms and voices at normal volume. It's really the difference between a diatribe and a discussion.

"Diatribe" is a word that comes from a couple of Greek words which mean "to wear away." People that engage in diatribes are holding forth their own views in such a way as to rub out any dissenting idea. Inflammatory language is an attack and puts people into the "fight or flight" mode. Instead of discussion, there is either an argument, or a one-sided oration. "Discussion" comes from two Latin words which mean to shake apart. In usage, it means to dissect and examine. Respectful language invites an in-depth look at a subject.

Consider an example in which someone starts out a conversation with, "Those fat-cat senators just screwed us again by passing that baby-killing bill." If the listener is in agreement, there won't be a discussion, only a crucifixion of the senators and mutual self-righteousness around the speaker's moral beliefs. If the listener is not in agreement, there will either be an argument trying to prove who's right, or the listener will withdraw.

Now consider a different start: "I just heard on the news that the Senate passed a bill encouraging stem cell research. What kinds of moral and practical issues does this raise?" By creating a safe forum, extending an openness to examine what the bill really means, the discussion is likely to lead to all sorts of questions and issues that have far-reaching implications. Regardless of your beliefs, there is a freedom to raise questions for deeper thought.

Diatribes shut off questions. Discussions encourage them.
Diatribes create an adversarial atmosphere. Discussions create a collegial atmosphere.
Diatribes force defensiveness. Discussions allow self-examination.

The next time a moral issue arises, start a discussion. Challenge those who use inflammatory language to put their guns away and respectfully look at the issues with you. This leads to ethical and moral growth and creates and environment of change. One more example of "Starting With Me."