To Civil or Not to Civil

It's a tougher call than you think.

It's clearly okay to be intolerant of the intolerant.  You don't need to be accepting of anyone's hatred towards the "other."

But exactly how far do we extend civility?

Is it necessary to be uncivil to the uncivil?

We have an administration that would leave George Orwell open-jawed in its lying brazenness, in its utter disregard and contempt for democracy, in its willingness to defame public and private citizens alike.  How do we deal with it?  Do we answer their incivility with our own?  Should we be stunned that when we strike back, we're the ones called uncivil?

I don't know if what the Red Hen did was right.  I do know that it is within the standards the Christian Reich has set for itself.  If you're rejecting serving gays because they don't match your moral code, then refusing service to someone who is complicit in the destruction of democracy, who lies with unreserved gusto, who is unconcerned with children being separated from their parents, would indeed be within your purview.

I don't know if I would have done that.  I understand that many establishments have a sign up that they have the right to refuse service to anyone, but that is usually reserved for customers that are rude, dressed offensively (or not all), or carrying weapons (okay, I guess that's not true much anymore - thanks, gun nut extremists).  I get queasy when patrons are refused service on their sexual or political status.  We are still too close to the days of the segregated lunch counter.

I am not excusing Sarah Sanders and her atrocious behavior.  She is as complicit in our incivility as anyone in the country (except for the Grand Poobah of hatespeak and intolerance, the Russian influenced narrow electoral college victor, President Donald J Trump.

It might have been better to have gone up to Sarah Sanders and told her that the owner and staff had serious problems with what she and the Trump administration were doing, but that they would do their best to be courteous and kind to her while she was there.  Of course, had they done this, it would have made no impression on Sarah Sanders, and no news headlines would have generated from it.

It fired up the respective bases.  The Red Hen got booked up for weeks to come.  The liberal media cheered.  It's not quite as enthusiastic reception as a business owner got for refusing to serve Vice President Biden during the 2012 election, where the business was turned into a hero and got a spot at the Republican Convention, but it was mostly appreciated nonetheless.


On the other side?  The one crying for more civility?

Yeah.  Not so much.

There have been loud, nasty protests surrounding The Red Hen.  This has included curse words, name calling, and the throwing of feces and garbage.  The owner of The Red Hen has resigned from a Main Street business associations. They have received bomb threats and death threats, and are now closed until July 5th.

This is not a measured response.  It is a very uncivil response.  It is a dangerous response.  It is a scary response.  It is a brown-shirted response.

I don't know the answer.  Is it right to be uncivil to the uncivil?

When the mildest reaction to incivility (please don't eat at my restaurant) is matched with the ferocity of the violently uncivil, I don't know what we're left with.  What happens when civil disobedience is met with uncivil violence?  What are we left with?

Civil war?