c. 1998 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ Does the volatile rhetoric involved in some of America’s most contentious political and moral issues such as abortion and gay rights lead to violence? Can the decibel level of public discourse be brought down without abandoning deeply held ethical principles?

Leaders from more than two dozen groups often at loggerheads in bitter religious disagreements over such social issues met earlier this week to explore a platform for civil coexistence.

It wasn’t easy. But they tried.”Even the most entrenched opponents are seeking an alternative to rancor and distrust,”said moderator Martin Marty, renowned historian, Lutheran pastor and a scholar-in-residence at the Park Ridge Center for the Study of Health, Faith and Ethics, the Chicago-based think tank that sponsored the session.

Both using and discussing principles recently developed by the Park Ridge Center to promote civil discourse between opponents, representatives from such groups as the Family Research Council, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, the National Association of Evangelicals, and Catholics for a Free Choice gathered attempting to give civility a trial run.

Much of the rapid-fire three-hour roundtable, while touching on family planning and abortion, centered around homosexuality, an issue both of contention between religious and secular groups as well as within faith communities.

The editor of Family Policy, the publication of the Family Research Council _ which believes homosexual activity is a sin and a disorder _ defended the organization’s stance, saying that it did not have an offensive aim but rather sought to defend what it believes is the”natural order.””We are not trying to spread any particular agenda,”said Robert W. Patterson.”Is it uncivil to suggest that homosexual behavior _ I am not talking about the orientation, but the behavior _ is destructive to the moral order?” Not everyone sympathized.”There is a consequence to your message no matter how civilly you say it,”said Judith Schaeffer, the deputy legal director for People for the American Way, a liberal religious freedom lobbying group.”You did not kill Matthew Shepard, but you created an environment in which homosexuals are seen as alcoholics, kleptomaniacs _ as something sick.” Throughout the often passionate debate, participants acknowledged a need for better discourse and praised the work of the Park Ridge Center.

Conference participant Frances Kissling, president of the independent group Catholics for a Free Choice, was among those who lauded the attempt of Park Ridge to develop a set of principles for restoring civility to public discourse, especially its urging recognition that conflict is inevitable and can be creative and its call for all sides to listen to those previously excluded from debate. “The principles are an urgently needed transfusion to help faith communities realize civil dialogue on a wide range of controversial issues,”said Marty.

In the coming months, Park Ridge will distribute at least 2,000 copies of the document to people in positions of religious leadership.

The benefits of constructive dialogue are great, said David E. Guinn, a Park Ridge scholar who with Marty and Larry Greenfield wrote the civil discourse document. “The benefits are a way of structuring civil discourse so discourse does not just get locked up on a single issue, like abortion, but recognizes a myriad of common elements,”said Guinn.

The issue of distributing condoms in schools is a prime example of the importance of common ground. Instead of both sides coming to an impasse, people need to realize how much they agree on, said Guinn. “They could do 99 percent of the programs to reduce teenage pregnancy together if they acknowledged their common goals,”said Guinn.

The set of principles,”To Speak and Be Heard: Principles of Religious Civil Discourse,”is divided into five main sections ranging from the nature of civil discourse in the public square to the future hopes of civil discourse. Also included is a report providing guidelines for structuring public policy discourse among diverse people of faith and a separate document clarifying how to put the principles to work.

DEA END ROCKWOOD