Faith and Values: Can we disagree without being disagreeable?

I’m beginning to think either I’m getting old or I’ve been living under a rock, but apparently I missed the obituary for the age-old adage, “We need to disagree without being disagreeable.”

In today’s world, the political, social and religious chasms that divide us seem more like Grand Canyons than mere misunderstandings of another’s point of view.

Terms like “trigger warning” or “safe spaces” – millennial-esque type words that, as a millennial, I thoroughly despise – do little more than show how truly unable we have become to hear a differing opinion. The scene of disagreeable disagreement is played out on a grandiose scale in our daily interactions on social media, in the mainstream media and in our own interpersonal relationships.

For instance, the recent decision by the Federal Communications Commission to roll back Obama-era regulations of Title II of the Communications Act and Net Neutrality has put many of my friends and family on opposite sides of the issue.

Recently, I had an online discussion about the topic with a friend of mine who has deep roots in the tech community. His view was diametrically opposed to mine, as I saw the repealing of regulation back to the pre-2015, Clinton-era light-touch regulations a good thing, and I felt it should be the Federal Trade Commission and not the FCC that regulates business operation on the internet.

Generally, my friend and I fall on the same side of the political, religious and social spectrum. On this occasion, we didn’t. Our discussion was thought-provoking and full of what we perceived to be the facts and nuances of a complex situation.

One would think that in the debate of such a “hot topic,” tempers could become easily inflamed and misunderstandings would most definitely occur. But in this case they didn’t. We had a rational conversation, in which each of us could see the other’s point of view. And while we didn’t agree on what should be done, we are still friends. Or at least at the time of this writing he still claims me as a friend.

This led me to ponder: How did we get here as a society? Are we really more polarized than years, decades or centuries ago? Or have we just lost the ability to listen? Have we lost the ability to have a rational, well-thought-out debate without descending into the chaos of personal attacks or the need to hide in a safe space because someone’s words, opinions or lifestyle makes us feel uncomfortable?

I believe in hearty debate. Civil debate is the only thing that moves a society forward. Debating the merits of this topic or that topic allows each side to explain its point of view, especially when we are debating with honesty and openness.

That doesn’t mean we will agree with the opposite side, nor should we be forced to. And I’ve heard the argument that we shouldn’t make people uncomfortable with our opinions or words, but honestly, what lasting change has ever come without being uncomfortable first? Muscles can’t grow without stress and discomfort. Neither can society. Hearing another’s point of view, no matter how starkly different, or strange, or uncomfortable it may cause us to be, is one of the only things that can challenge our own perceptions and cause us to look at things through a different lens.

When we stop for a moment, we can realize that although we may vehemently disagree on a topic with someone, that doesn’t mean we need to engage in behavior that, frankly, we wouldn’t accept from our children. I’m left hoping we can resurrect that old saying, “We need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable.” In the end, while disagreeing may occur, really listening to another’s thoughts on any given topic is the only way that we will find the areas in which we agree.

So what do you say? Can’t we all just disagree?

Jeffrey Borders is a Spokane-born respiratory therapist, self-published author and volunteer firefighter. He is a father and husband and is active in the LDS church. His work can be found on his website, www.jeffbordersbooks.com.