Difficult Dialogue with Dignity and Care (Jacob and Laban)

Photo from easy-peasy.ai

 A Jewish woman told me recently that her family was torn apart because of how they dealt with their differing opinions about current terrible events. Matters of life and death are certainly worth arguing about, passionately. If they can save a single human life – Palestinian or Israeli, it is more than worth it. However, many of the arguments that destroy relationships don’t advance justice, life, safety or peace. Instead, they inhibit thoughtful discussion that might otherwise achieve these very noble aims. This conundrum concerns me enough to leave my family for Shabbat to spend it with the Newtown Synagogue community to talk about difficult dialogue with dignity and care. In this blog post I share are few of the thoughts that I plan to speak about.

Care. The first element in having a challenging conversation while maintaining a relationship is to care deeply about and really see the other person, not just their opinion or argument. From care, respect flows naturally.

A stance of not knowing. One aspect of feeling affirmed in dignity, is to be understood in the way you understand yourself. For this to be work it is best that when we enter a conversation, we adopt a stance of not knowing (1). We put aside everything we think we know about what the other person is telling us and just listen deeply to exactly what they are telling us. We avoid filling in the gaps in what we are hearing with assumptions. When we ask clarifying questions, we use the exact words of the speaker. For example, if someone tells us they are reluctant to visit a place; we don’t ask if they are afraid. Instead, we ask, “What feelings or thoughts do you have about this place that make you reluctant to go there?”

Recognise the layers. Difficult conversations have three layers (2). There is the surface conversation about “what happened”. There is the emotional conversation about how we feel that is sometimes hidden. The most interesting layer is the identity conversation. This is the part where two people try to get each other to agree that they are the “good one” and the other party is the villain.  

Ensure you are ok. To manage an identity conversation, it helps not to be at war with oneself. If we are plagued by intense self-doubt, then just one harsh accusation from another person can trigger deep shame, as our inner critic finds an external ally, both giving us hell in unison. That shame might be subconscious and manifest as anger and animosity. ‘How dare you make me feel so bad’. However, if we have leaned into and thought through our dilemmas and are somewhat ok with our inner conflict, we will be less easily hurt or triggered. Being vulnerable and sharing vulnerability can be beautiful, and is quite different to being at war with oneself.    

Experience Close. On Sunday 16 November, groups of Christians, Jews and Muslims gathered in Sydney to participate in “listening circles” organised by the Abraham Conference with some assistance from Together For Humanity. We were invited to share our feelings about what has happened over the last two years. It was raw, honest, vulnerable and connecting.  Participants did not self-censor. Yet, there was no drama or hostility. Yishai Shalif (1) writes about the importance of speaking from what he calls an “experience close” perspective. If people care about each other they are interested in what the other person has experienced and it can bring them together.

Let us consider how principles of difficult dialogue play out in the story of Jacob and his uncle Laban.

Jacob was tortured by self-doubt about deceiving his dying father by impersonating his older brother Esau (3). The deception allowed Jacob to get blessings from his father that were intended for the first-born, but Jacob was not sure if he was blessed or cursed (4). Jacob had done it reluctantly, under duress – his mother insisted on it (5), “walking bent over (typical body language expressing shame) and crying” (6).  

With this inner conflict still unresolved, Jacob was an easy target of Laban. Laban had deceived Jacob into marrying his older daughter Leah, instead of her younger sister Rachel, who Jacob loved and who was promised to him (7).  When Jacob realised that he had been tricked, he complained to Laban, who then went on the offensive. Instead of acknowledging his own dishonesty, Laban attacked Jacob, stating that in “our place” (with our “superior values”), we don’t allow the younger sibling to usurp the rights of the first born (8). Laban highlighted Jacob’s own deception relating to siblings. Laban effectively turned Jacob into the villain (9). This is an easy move to use against people plagued by self-doubt.

After Jacob was chastised, his uncle Laban manipulated him into working for him, far from home, for 14 years.

One of the worst parts of the story for me is when Jacob, at his wits end after all this time, asked his father-in-law Laban for permission to go home. “Send me, and I will go to my place, and my land.” (10)  Jacob told his uncle, “You know my work, that I served you.” (11)  Jacob argued that his work ethic was so strong he would succeed anywhere (12).  If Laban cared about Jacob, he would have shown interest in Jacob’s desire to be in “his place”, and also validated his assumption that he knew how hard Jacob had worked. If he had a shred of humanity, this was the time to be gracious and wish Jacob well. Instead, Laban carried on about his own business interests and how Jacob was useful to him and failed to acknowledge Jacob’s hard work and his longing to be in his rightful place.

Laban failed to care or listen with heart. This led to his family disintegrating and his daughters turning away from him (13). Regrettably, there are some people too wrapped up in themselves to sustain family ties. When interacting with them, it is important to protect oneself from harm.

Jacob, too, eventually, leans into his usurpation of his brother’s place as the first born and his deception of his father and comes to terms with himself in a dramatic struggle with an angel (14). Not long after this “encounter with the angel”, he met his brother Esau from whom he had run away from two decades earlier and they embrace (15). How Jacob achieved a reconciliation with his brother is a longer story, but the fact that he did shows that there is hope for reconciliation in families after bitter disputes.  

 

References

1)    Shalif, Y, Liviatan, I, Paran, R, (2007) “Care-full Listening and Conversations. Creating Dialogue between Members of Conflicting Multi-Cultural Groups”, Israel Ministry of Education.

2)    Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (2023). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most (Third edition, fully updated and revised). Penguin Books

3)    Genesis 27, Abarbanel commentary on Vayetze, Lamm, N, (2012), Derashot Ledorot, Maggid Books, New York, p. 148

4)    Abarbanel commentary on Vayetze,

5)    Genesis 27:6-13

6)    Midrash Rabba

7)    Genesis 29:18-25

8)    Genesis 29:26,

9)    Beis Halevi, (1990), Oliner Edition, Herczeg, p. 125

10) Genesis 30:25

11) Genesis 30:26

12) B’eer Mayim Chayim

13) Genesis 31:14-16

14) Genesis 32:25-29. Also, see commentary of Maimonides in the Guide for the Perplexed.

15) Genesis 33:4

 

Breaking Bread with Bishops and the Dialogue of Being and Hospitality

Humans relate better to those we categorise as friends or kin, and we can develop such connections as much – or even more- by being together than by talking. On Tuesday night, a large number of Catholic bishops and Jewish leaders had a meal together. I found it inspiring and challenging.

Bishop Greg Homeming, an older man with glasses, dressed in a very simple brown monk’s robe and sandals, spoke to us about his experiences of friendship and breaking bread with Jewish people. In his anecdotes and sincerity, he demonstrated the importance of being together.

The bishop shared his experience of having Shabbat dinner with a Jewish family. After the meal, they all began shouting at each other. His own cultural heritage is Chinese, and the lively arguing that was normal for this family of Jewish-Lithuanian culture was new and interesting for him. I have developed a friendship with this bishop, but there was another rabbi there with whom he had developed a close bond over many years. I observed them from a distance during dinner. They were in animated conversation like old friends. This was a man who walked his talk.

The bishop’s hospitality was outstanding. They organised kosher catering for us. Delicious salmon, purple and orange carrots, roast potatoes, salad, humous, fruit and two types of cake for dessert. The company was lovely, chatting about various experiences, including how bishops are appointed and visiting people in prison among other matters. As I was leaving, a bishop who had had breakfast with my son and me in July 2024 at a kosher café remembered my son’s name and asked how he was. It was an outstanding evening.

Yet, I felt a bit restless. I believe passionately in the importance of “being”, as in being present and being the best version of ourselves, as opposed to just doing important tasks. Yet, I am a product of three cultures that emphasise activity. Judaism teaches us that “action is the main thing” (1); Chabad Hasidism, under the leadership of its last Rebbe, urged relentless and urgent activism and I am a child of New York, a city that never sleep or stops hustling. I was in a room full of leaders who were responsible for the education of hundreds of thousands of children, teachers and believers and it was such an opportunity to work, yet we sat like a bunch of people without a care in the world. This was because the dialogue of being was very important for all of us. There is also something Christian (or Catholic) about the experience I had that night, that moved me even if I can’t fully articulate it.

The intersection between being, doing and hospitality plays out in the story of Abraham who was “being” inspired and elevated by a divine revelation (2). Despite the loftiness of this experience, Abraham intentionally (3) shifted his attention from the divine visitation to an opportunity to offer hospitality to passing travellers (4).  This choice is justified in the Talmud as a principle that welcoming guests is greater than receiving the divine presence, the Shechina (5).

The prioritisation of hospitality over spiritual ecstasy could be understood as prioritising doing over being. This missed the idea that for Abraham being hospitable was a deeply moving and joyful (6) experience. Abraham’s enthusiasm can be seen in the way his whole family was enlisted in feeding the travellers and the five references to speed, rushing and running in describing the preparation (7). It helps to contrast the hospitality of Abraham’s nephew Lot (8) with that of Abraham. While both men insisted that their reluctant guests join them, in Lot’s case, there was no reference to speed or any member of his family joining in (9).  

As I reflect on the hospitality, fellowship, friendship and food offered to me last night by new and old friends, I acknowledge a precious gift and I recommit to the value of being, and the practice of the dialogue of being. Not all dialogue involves words.  This is beautifully put in a psalm: “There is no talking, without their voices being heard. [Yet], in all of the earth, their message goes forth, their ‘words’ to the very edges of the world.”  (10)

1)    Ethics of the Fathers 1:17

2)    Genesis 18:1

3)    Rabbi Simcha Zisl of Kelm

4)    Genesis 18:2

5)    Talmud, Shavuot 35b.

6)    The Baal Shem Tov comment relating to Genesis 18:19

7)    Genesis 18:6-8

8)    Genesis 19:1-3

9)    Hattin, M., Vayera | Life's Concentric Circles, https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-bereishit/parashat-vayera/vayera-lifes-concentric-circles

10) Psalm 19:4-5

Dialogue Challenges and Abraham

On Sunday afternoon, I was standing in my local library, looking Jewish, together with a Jewish child. Two teenage boys walked near us and mumbled a few words they thought would annoy us because we are Jewish and then walked off laughing. The child said to me, I want to go home now. I also felt like going home then. Being an object of ridicule and an object with which to show off to your friend how daring you are, so you can feel a sense of belonging, is unpleasant. The library is one place that makes me feel relaxed, except on that Sunday, when it didn’t.

One might argue that this is a first world problem and I don’t have permission to be annoyed because other people are suffering more. I reject that. All harm must be prevented and dealt with.

On Monday, a Muslim man in New York was mocked because of his concern about his aunt who “stopped taking the subway after September 11 because she did not feel safe in her hijab.”   The mocker suggested that complaining implied that "the real victim of 9/11 was his auntie, who got some (allegedly) bad looks". This ridicule is not ok. It is not right to divide people into “the real victims” and “the fake victims”. We should all feel comfortable on public transport or in a public library, and anywhere else and expect to be treated as people and individuals, not objects or stereotypes. This includes Muslim women who have copped this abuse for years!

Also on Monday, two people from the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and two of us from Together For Humanity planned a youth forum for high school students in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney. The aim was to ensure that everyone can thrive at school, feel safe, supported, valued and known at school, free from demeaning comments and racism. To get this result, the students need to think deeply about effective dialogue. The students would be offered some tips about how to do this.

One tip we will offer is to use the word “and” rather than “but” when considering conflicting perspectives (1).  This can help us see how multiple perspectives can be true, rather than one cancelling another, while the word “but” usually implies that only the words after it (“but”) are valid. 

Another tip relates to “violence” and “silence”. These are two ways in which people respond to the discomfort of some conversations, according to the authors of Crucial Conversations (2). “Violence” in this context includes trying to force an opinion on others, or verbal personal attacks.

“Silence” can include masking one’s true feelings and just going along because one might feel afraid to say what one really thinks. One problem with silence is that valid concerns are not raised and important information is lost, whereas dialogue is defined by the authors as the free flow of meaning between people which enables new ways of thinking about challenges.   

Abraham is known for his commitment to fairness and justice (3) and being a kind person who was probably not comfortable saying no to his beloved first wife, Sarah. When Sarah felt disrespected by Hagar - her former maid, who had become her rival wife of Abraham - Sarah demanded that Hagar be dealt with harshly (4). Abraham’s response to Sarah was that she could do whatever she pleased to Hagar. Sarah’s treatment of Hagar resulted in her running away.

My guess is that Abraham was not ok with this course of action, but it was easier to agree. Ramban, one of the most respected commentators on the Torah, wrote that the harsh treatment of Hagar was a sin on the part of Sarah, as well as Abraham for condoning it (5).  

Going back to the youth forum, to encourage students not to mask their real views, we will invite them to respond the following prompt. “If I was completely honest, I would say that I am not ok with…” (6). This prompt led to deeply honest conversations in a Brisbane school a while ago, and we are hoping for similar results in Sydney. 

Another tip is to reflect on what the motives are for a conversation. We are encouraged to ask ourselves “What do you really want out of this conversation” (7)? Is the purpose mutual understanding? Pushing a point of view? Venting?   

A woman and her son were approached the other night by a stranger. “Can I ask you a question?” the stranger asked. Thus began an insincere pretence at dialogue, that was really about lecturing someone about the “questioner’s” opinion. I find such behaviour so offensive, and consider it is a crime against the sacred act of dialogue.

Dialogue, when it goes well, is a beautiful means of connection and respect between people with diverse perspectives or worldviews. For Muslims, knowing people from other “tribes and nations” is part of the purpose of creation (8). It has been a profound privilege for me to be known by Muslims and people of other traditions as well as to know in return. Yet, sometimes people with the best of intentions have ulterior motives and the dialogue fails.

It has taken me a while, but finally, I learned that there are conversations “that I really feel I need to have”, that, in fact, don’t need to happen. Unlike conversations with people with whom dialogue is likely to be beneficial and lead to mutual understanding, there are people with whom conversation is unlikely to be beneficial. The divergent interests are far more compelling for them than the common good. In such cases it is better to go separate ways.

Abraham understood this was the case with his nephew, Lot. Rather than engage in dialogue with the younger man, Abraham said to him “Let there be no strife between you and me, between my herders and yours… Let us separate: if you go north, I will go south; and if you go south, I will go north.” (9) Abraham still cared about the younger man and was there for him when he needed help (10), but also created space between them. Sometimes, this is the best course of action.

The session we are planning for the high school students in mid-November will hopefully be the start of a longer engagement and learning journey that will enable the fine young people we meet to create cultures of respect and belonging in their schools.  

1)     Stone, D., Patton, B, Heen, S, (of the Harvard Negotiation project), (2023) Difficult Conversations, Penguin Books

2)     Patterson, K., Grenny, J., Switzler, A., McMillan, R., (2018) in Crucial Conversations, McGraw Hill.

3)     Genesis 16:1-6

4)      Genesis 18:19 & 25

5)      Ramban, on Genesis 16:6

6)      CHAT, Cultural Hearing and Telling program, Scripture Union

7)      Patterson et al.

8)      Sura Al Hujurat - The Rooms (49:13) O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware.  — Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran https://quran.com/49/13

9)      Genesis, 13:8-9

10)   Rashi on Genesis, 13:8-9

Dignity, Dialogue and Donald Trump

Human dignity is greatly emphasized in Judaism. The threat that Trump’s election poses to the dignity of women and minorities is very serious. As one Trump supporter put it: “the effect of Trump is that everything becomes permissible” (1). The risk is that Trump will normalise bigotry and hate-speech to the extent that we are less aware and less questioning of hurtful and humiliating behaviour in the future. However, our solidarity with minorities does not require dismissing the indignities of those doing it tough, including rural white voters who voted for Trump in overwhelming numbers. . Furthermore, I suggest we even take a moment to think about Trump’s own indignity. I know, I ask for a lot from many who are outraged about this election, but there is a time for everything, (2) and now more than ever is a time for dialogue and exploration rather than building walls.  

My call for dialogue does not preclude howling in indignation. On the contrary, it might well be a time “to hurl (assertive but civil and strictly verbal) stones”. To speak of Trump without condemnation is, in most cases, to condone his sins. His rhetoric against Mexicans and Muslims recalls the cruelty of the city of Sodom to outsiders in a xenophobic effort to preserve the wealth of its fertile valley (3). Condemnation counters the normalization of deplorable views, but of course calling people deplorable based on their likely voting intentions is unwise, and it is also wrong.

As Jews we need to emulate Abraham, who welcomed all travelers into his homes even if their beliefs (5) and values were diametrically opposed to his own. On social media, I have noticed a ‘trend to unfriend’ those who support trump by those opposed to him. The research shows that engaging people with prejudices can be effective (6) (see the article referred to in this footnote for one touching example of successfully canvassing for Trans rights through non-judgemental conversation and empathy). In such conversations it is important to listen more than we talk.

I tried some respectful engagement myself this morning in a Jewish Whatsapp group that includes some Trump supporters, where someone posted a racist comment. Instead of moralising, I appealed to self interest by pointing out that the racists who despise Muslims, Mexicans and Blacks also hate Jews. My comments on the Whatsapp chat emboldened other members of the group to also speak out against racism within the group chat.

Some have argued, and I think correctly, that one factor that contributed to Trump’s support was an anger by white rural voters toward  sophisticated city people who talked down to them. This perceived disrespect is part of what drove the anger toward elitism that pervaded American society, that was exploited, by Donald Trump to drive passion and energy into his supporters. This anger doesn’t justify degradation of any group, but we should not ignore the manifest anger that exists. This anger is borne of passion and stems from stories and backgrounds that we cannot always comprehend - but we should try to understand it and address any genuine injustices and needs. The distinction between condoning specific expressions of anger and understanding their sources can be applied when thinking about Trumps relationship with the media.

One of the most powerful articles I read about Trump was by a journalist who observed Trump rile up his rural poor audiences against the “elite” journalists. He recounts: “I was huddled in the media pen with the traveling press, awaiting the moment Trump would point at us and incite his 5,000 minions to jeer... (but) it only now dawned on me, in the final week of the campaign, to my great horror, that the real reason they put us in the pen was so they could turn us into props...He never once failed to invite his crowds to heckle us. He was placing us on display like captured animals. Behold, Trump said to his fans, I’ve rounded up a passel of those elites you detest. And I’ve caged them for you! Allow me to belittle them for your delight. Here, now you take a turn—go ahead, have at it! Do it again, don’t be shy!”.

However, an incident in 2011 suggests there might have been reveal a more personal l reason for Trumps enthusiasm for humiliating journalists, one which exemplifies the cycle of hurt and hate that Donald Trump was once a victim to, but is now perpetuating and leading. During that the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, Trump was repeatedly humiliated by President Obama and another comedian with cutting jokes. “Mr. Trump at first offered a drawn smile, then a game wave of the hand. But as the president’s mocking of him continued and people at other tables craned their necks to gauge his reaction, Mr. Trump hunched forward with a frozen grimace. After the dinner ended, Mr. Trump quickly left, appearing bruised” (7). He had been humiliated by 1000 laughing journalists. His revenge demonstrated that “hurt people, hurt people (8)”. We must break the cycle of hurt and take great care with our words (9). It is a time to heal!

Herein lies one lesson of hope from an otherwise draining election: We must employ a radical empathy and understanding to all those who we encounter, regardless of divergent ideologies. Indeed, Leviticus instructs that “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk.” Thus, despite the hate-filled rhetoric from Donald Trump and his supporters, that has served to embolden hate, and the hostility from city folk toward rural people, now is the time to move past that mood and embrace dialogue over division.

As Martin Luther King said “We’ve got some difficult days ahead..”, however “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”, for all people regardless of their skin color, gender, sexuality or faith. It our task, with patience, listening, compassion and curiosity as well as assertiveness to make sure that it does.

First published on At the Well. http://www.atthewell.com.au/article/dignity-dialogue-and-donald-trump

Notes:

1. Milo Yiannopoulos, http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/elite-got-it-wrong-trump-s-supporters-want-you-know-n681121
2. Ecclesiastes - Chapter 3
3. Genesis 19, Talmud, Sanhedrin 109
4. http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/11/15/13595508/racism-trump-research-study
5. Rashi to Genesis 18:4
6. Stevenson, S. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/on_the_trail_for_the_final_week_of_the_trump_campaign.html
7. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html?_r=0,
8. Will Bowen
9. Jacobson, Y.Y., Rabbi, in a recorded talk shared on whatapp, note the great sensitivity that God showed toward Abraham and Sarah in the Torah reading Vayera, Genesis 18:13 in which He doesn't repeat Sarah's words verbatim about Abraham being old, as she stated in verse 18:12.
10. Martin Luther King Jn. in The Mountaintop speech. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemountaintop.htm

Words that Insult, Humiliate, Agitate, or Inspire Togetherness

Introduction: Dear Friends,

I am thinking about the importance of words at this time.  A lot of angry words are being spoken, many motivated by altruistic, passionate concern for the innocent and outrage over the loss of life and the violence. Some have been simply abusive words by ignorant and even drunk individuals. A man screamed “Allah Akbar” at me in the middle of Bankstown.

I write these words with the threat of renewed hostilities in the air. There are very small things I can do to try to prevent the on-going killing in the Middle East. I am doing these quietly. As Joe Wakim of the Arab Council said about another bridge builder, this “role is to prevent this kind of stone throwing, not engage in it”. This is a small meditation regarding words and people of different backgrounds getting along in Australia.

All the very best,

Zalman

An example of the power of positive words.
The wonderful Paul Benett's book that I
launched. A real example of living
with light. http://thecrankyguru.net/

We saw a victory this week for collaborative efforts between communities. The Australian government accepted their joint calls against the humiliation of people on the basis of ethnicity or “race”.  

Yet a dark cloud hangs over community harmony in Australia. Yes, there is an elephant in the room that is a matter of life and death.  The burning question is how to stop the killing, violence and the suffering? This is a vital question that I care passionately about. Our tradition teaches that “to kill” is to diminish the “image” of the King, namely God, in whose image ALL humans are created (1). This question must be answered, in certain contexts, not by me in this public context. This is because I sincerely believe I might do more harm than good.  Every blame claim, justification, refutation and counter argument that  I can imagine, has already been shouted endlessly, motivated by a mix of anger, hatred, as well as sincere desires for justice and to protect the innocent.

Here is another question: What will be the impact of all this death and conflict here in Australia, where we Australians of Jewish, Arabic, Muslim, Sunni, Shia, Ukrainian and other backgrounds live?

An old Rabbi was attacked in Perth this week. School children were terrorized in Sydney. Shia Muslims have been copping it for many months, Muslims generally, for years. Less significantly, yesterday, I walked through a state school playground filled with Arabic teenagers. When they saw me, an identifiable Jew, they chanted at me: “Free, free, Palestine”.  A sheikh, who had been working with me and a group of students at the school, walked alongside me to support me as I walked quickly to my car. 

Students in Australia should be encouraged to care about the world they live in and engage with the pursuit of justice.  However, chanting at a Jewish man reflects a generalized hostility to the “Jewish people”, rather than advocacy for aggrieved Palestinians.  I don’t blame the kids. The distinction is not an easy one.  A Muslim who works with me, made the point that what I felt in that playground is very similar to how she feels when people shout out “terrorist” to her. “It has nothing to do with me,” she said.

Perhaps, of equal importance, was the raising of this very painful and difficult topic in our group that has been working together regularly from the beginning of this year. The question about the current situation was raised by a student in one word, “Palestine?” It was a useful conversation to have. At the same time it reflects a growing tendency to talk and think in slogans rather than fully developed ideas with any nuance. A lot of the “dialogue” about Gaza and Israel has been via Facebook and Twitter - images of dead children, other images with captions or slogans. 

I accept that, in some cases, one may insult, provoke, polarize, simplify and ridicule as part of agitating for change. The Biblical prophets resorted to exaggeration, simile and ridicule to argue for change. On the other hand, we need to get along in Australia. If we can’t do it here, where our lives are not under direct threat, how can the people who have lost relatives and their sense of security, not lose hope?! To some extent, hope has been another casualty of this terrible situation. It must be restored.

Words matter. According to the Jewish sages, humiliating another person to the point where the colour drains from his face is equivalent to spilling his blood. I think that is hyperbolic, but reflects the seriousness of the harm caused by denigrating speech, suggesting a psychological death. Perhaps, more to the point, if people with authority engage excessively in denigrating groups, younger people and less educated people will take that as a licence for violence and a signal that they have a right to be “bigots”.

I don’t have a formula for preventing murder, killing or war, but I know that listening from the heart, goodwill and nuanced conversation are part of the answer. Polarization is usually less helpful. We cannot banish darkness by beating it with sticks. We can only overcome it with light. I pray for the preservation of life, dignity, justice and peace. 

1      1) Mechilta