courtesy

Sometimes I wonder why I even get out of bed.

I've had a particularly rough morning, mostly fielding a barrage of e-mails -- and even a potential conspiracy -- about a recent problem in our community. But I also had a troubling experience while walking my dogs that has prompted me to compose the following editorial, to appear in the March issue of our community newsletter.



Last year, we ran an article about communication strategies to help neighbors work out differences while avoiding confrontation. I'm not sure if anyone in our community has employed those suggestions, but I've encountered some unfortunate exchanges of late and so wanted to address the issue.

We all know the old adage about making assumptions: "When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME." I've never particularly liked that phrasing, but the statement is true nonetheless.

The simple act of not assuming the worst in each other -- of giving the other person the benefit of the doubt, and of treating each other with courtesy and respect -- can move mountains when it comes to avoiding misunderstanding, confrontation, and outright hostility. Still, I am amazed by how many people instead treat each other with immediate disrespect, essentially choosing to assume the worst from the outset.

As an example, I was out walking my dogs this morning, just after 8:30am. I met another neighbor who was also out with her pooch, and we stopped to talk. While we made conversation, our dogs were playing together, getting leashes tangled, and occasionally yipping. We hadn't thought we were being particularly loud, though there are some pockets in our neighborhood where sound carries unexpectedly. After a few minutes, a woman in a nearby unit threw open her window and shouted at us. "WOULD YOU MOVE YOUR DOGS SOMEWHERE ELSE WHEN THEY'RE BARKING?! GEEZ!" I tried to respond with a good-natured, "Oh, certainly. I'm sorry," but the woman slammed her window in a huff, cutting me off.

The other dog walker and I were stung by both her tone and her manner. It's hard not to get your feelings hurt when someone addresses you like that. She had assumed we knew we were being loud, and that we knew we were bothering her, when we hadn't been aware of either. A comment was made about how nasty this woman's behavior had been -- and how it had been not only directed at us, but shouted out into the neighborhood to disturb others as well. It would have been easy for us to walk away with negative feelings about this woman after the way we had been treated.

I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she hadn't slept well and was having a particularly trying morning. Maybe she had a lot weighing on her mind or was already feeling angry or upset about something else. Maybe she had no idea what she looked like to others when shouting like that, or what it felt like to be on the receiving end of her words.

Sometimes, when we need to ask someone to alter their behavior -- whether it's a neighbor who has the stereo on too loud, someone whose car parked in our parking space, or someone with a barking dog -- we have a tendency to psych ourselves up for confrontation. We're uncomfortable making the request and sometimes second-guess our right to complain; our discomfort and fear over how the other person might react work us up into such a tense state that it's nearly impossible to be truly friendly when making the request. Whether we intended it or not, that tension comes out as hardness in our voice, as stiffness in our body-language, and sometimes even as flat-out rudeness in demeanor. Being on the receiving end of this, of course, is not so pleasant. If the other person doesn't immediately give us the benefit of the doubt and respond with compassion, the person on the receiving end is likely to be inspired by bad feelings of their own.... And things can easily escalate from there.

Even if these two neighbors walk away without getting into an obvious argument, the seeds of negativity have been planted. They may carry this mini-confrontation around with them for the rest of the day, allowing it to adversely influence their interactions with others they come into contact with. Perhaps the neighbors involved will begin a silent battle of passive-aggressiveness with each other. Or the negativity may resurface at a later time in a seemingly unrelated instance. Bad feelings have a pernicious way of festering and spreading out branches underground.

So when approaching a neighbor with such a request, diplomacy is certainly key, but so also is basic courtesy. Do not automatically assume that your neighbor knows that their behavior is bothering you, or that they are being deliberately inconsiderate. Make a conscious decision to treat that neighbor with the same courtesy and respect that you would want to be given, should the tables be turned.

Instead of "Would you turn down the music already? My ears are bleeding over here!" Try, "These walls are thinner than I'd thought. Would you mind turning down your stereo?"

Instead of immediately calling to have a neighbor's car towed away, try, "You probably didn't realize that this is my parking space. There are these other spaces here that aren't reserved."

Instead of, "Move your dogs!" Try, "You know, the sound gets really magnified right here. Would you mind taking your dogs a bit further away?"

Not a single one of us is perfect. Chances are, we annoy each other just as much as we are annoyed by others -- it's the nature of living in community. But we do have a choice when it comes to how we deal with each other. This month, let's make a conscious effort to be truly courteous, whether we're dealing with conflict or not, and to treat each other with the respect and compassion that we all deserve. And when we slip -- because, let's face it, we're human -- it is really okay to apologize.

freedom of...?

Many Westerners are having difficulty understanding the deep offense that Muslims around the world have taken to cartoon drawings of the prophet Muhammed appearing in various European newspapers. Digging deeper into the issue, a friend of mine went searching the web for the rule in Sharia law forbidding depictions of Muhammed, but came up empty.

I believe that the outcry stems not from Sharia law, but from the Koran itself which—similar to the Ten Commandments—forbids idolatry:

Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed... fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme.
(Sura 2:91-93)

Depictions of the prophet Muhammed would be considered acts of idolatry. According to CNN.com, however, there are differing interpretations within Islamic sects:

Islamic law, based on clerics' interpretation of the Quran and the sayings of the prophet, forbids depiction's of the Prophet Mohammad and other major religious figures -- even positive ones -- to prevent idolatry. Shiite Muslim clerics differ in that they allow images of their greatest saint, Ali, the prophet's son-in-law, though not Mohammad.

source: CNN.com

Regardless of moral and rights issues involved here, this is a problem because there is no true universal law that applies globally. Freedom of speech and the press in Western countries ends up impacting countries with very different laws, simply because Western media is available globally.

Should the Western press curtail its coverage and the "freedom of expression" of their commentators and cartoonists, out of respect for religion? That's a very slippery slope, doubtfully offering any place of satisfactory compromise.

Should Muslims around the world simply put aside their religious and moral codes, out of respect for the laws and rights of other countries? This is again a problem that fundamentalists of many faiths have been struggling with—how to preserve religious law in the face of a changing world.

I'm not a big fan of reactionary violence. While I understand the deep offense taken at the publication of such cartoons, I cannot agree that threats of kidnapping and violence are an appropriate response. Additionally, as Western newspapers are not under the control of the government—at least, they're not supposed to be—calling upon European governments to apologize on behalf of their newspapers is futile.

Overall, I don't see that there really is any right or wrong on either side of this argument. It is simply culture clash, and I don't know what truly satisfying solution might exist.

I find it interesting that we've got a similar—though less immediately explosive—battle going on here with our television networks. Upset with depictions of Christianity on television, the conservative American Family Association boycotted NBC's "The Book of Daniel"—similar to "Desperate Housewives," I suppose, but with a troubled priest and sporadic appearances by Jesus himself. The show was pulled after just a handful of episodes. Granted, the show was awful. I'm not sure how much the AFA's pressure had to do with the cancellation.

Now, the same group is going after "Will & Grace," over an episode which may not have even been written yet, much less aired.

It will be interesting to see what happens. In the face of international Muslim outrage, Western media may argue to uphold freedom of the media, but here at home, are our networks bowing to conservative religious pressure? Minus the protesting in the streets and the threats of violence, how are the sentiments of American fundamentalist Christian groups different from those of their international Muslim counterparts? How far will "freedom of expression" bend in response to demands that conservative religion shape what is supposed to be diverse culture?