Questioning Civility

We are not questioning your authority, sir, but if manners
prevent our speaking the truth, we will be without manners.

Ianto Morgan - How Green Was My Valley

I attended the lecture and dinner--advertised above--at St. Patrick's this evening.  It's enjoyable socializing with fellow parishioners, but if our padre has anything of interest to say on civility his rhetorical fusillade remains battle-ready.  Here are some questions I'd hoped to see addressed:

How can we define the boundary between civility and incivility, in various contexts?  How ought our allegiance to civility be prioritized, among other values?  Under what circumstances might a reasonable person dispense with civility?  Can incivility be expressed silently?

Is incivility actually becoming worse--as this evening's title maintains?  How can we know for sure, living in the awareness that old people have always made this claim?

How should we handle disputes; where should the line be drawn?  How should infractions against civility be addressed?  (Once someone has behaved uncivilly, what are we then authorized to do?)

Within the group assembled here, are there any obvious barriers to honest dialogue?  Where among these problems ought incivility be ranked? 

Are all politicians equally responsible for the current level of incivility in public discourse?  Do any public figures who enjoy drawing attention to their 'exemplary civility' do so in error?  Why do we let them get away with it?

I suspect we're discussing civility at St. Patrick's not because it's an especially important problem, now--among parishioners or in society--but due to its being an easy, inoffensive 'issue' with which we can pretend to engage, without the messiness attendant genuine controversy.

The perennial popularity of 'the call for a return to civility' satisfies our Minnesotan yen to see mush production and sanctimony rewarded.