Looking for your curriculum? Click here to access our textbook resources.
 
 
 

Civil Discussion and the Role of Feelings

Insert Liturgical Connection Title Here

This lesson is for:
Download all PDFs Print this lesson plan

Tagged as

Lesson Overview

The U.S. is unique in that people of many different backgrounds live and work alongside each other in relative peace. Even more extraordinarily, an orderly and peaceful transfer of power occurs at the national level every two years. We are so used to this way of life that we barely take note, but we are a rare exception in world history.

What is it about our country that has made us less prone to violence and political strife? The answer is complex, of course, but one important piece is our commitment to freedom of speech. Free speech empowers citizens to use reasonable persuasion, rather than violence, to bring about change. For there to be reasonable discussion or civil debate, citizens must apply their intellects to a given topic, rather than letting feelings dominate.

In recent times, Americans’ ability to engage in civil debate has seemed to falter. What do these trends mean for our free society? This month’s Teaching the Faith with Current Events focuses on how the proper ordering of our faculties—our intellect first, then our will, and lastly, our feelings—is needed for reasonable discussion to take place. Included are fun activities to help your students think about the kinds of skills and dispositions citizens need for civil discussion—which is absolutely essential for American citizenship. Because unlike most other countries, American citizens are not bound by a common ethnicity or history, but by our commitment to shared principles.

In this lesson, your students will:

  • Examine three faculties of the soul: intellect, will, and passions (or feelings).
  • Understand the right way to order our faculties, and specifically that our feelings should be governed by reason.
  • Begin to explore the way freedom of speech helps ensure a peaceful society.
  • Analyze what happens to free speech when our faculties are in disorder—i.e. when our feelings rule over our will and intellect.

Lesson Materials

Activities:

  • Have students read Handout A: Civil Discussion and the Role of Feelings and answer the questions. Go over answers as a class.
  • Next, put students in groups of 3-4 and assign each group one of the scenarios on Handout B: Choices and Feelings. Variations: You could have groups analyze all of the scenarios, or even have students analyze them all individually, treating the scenarios like an Internet “personality quiz.”
  • Go over answers as a large group, using the Answer key below as a guide.

Optional Extension:

A news article is provided for several of the scenarios. You may wish to share these articles with students and discuss the situations for what they reveal about the state of free speech and civil discussion in the U.S.

Answer Key/Talking Points

The scenarios are constructed in a similar way:

  • The “A” choices reflect being ruled by emotion, even allowing emotion to result in demands for restrictions on free speech and punishments for innocent people.
  • The “B” choices reflect being ruled by emotion.
  • The “C” and “D” choices reflect reasonable approaches to encountering controversial opinions.
  • The virtue of prudence can help us determine when to choose responses such as “C” or “D.”

When more and more people choose along the lines of option A, our society becomes less free. We are closing our minds off from reasoned debate, and effectively using force to silence others.

When more and more people choose along the lines of option B, our ability to engage in civil debate also decreases. When our ability to engage in civil debate decreases, all of society suffers. We are more likely to turn to an authority to settle our problems for us, rather than solving them ourselves, as a free people should do.

Students may ask about “hate speech” and whether we have a right to engage in it. The answer is, yes, we do. But the government cannot punish us simply for saying things that offend other people. (So-called “hate speech” is not an actual legal category of speech.)
Freedom of speech is not an unlimited right, however. In addition to the famous example of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater if there is no fire, threats, or speech designed to incite “imminent [i.e. about to happen] lawless action” (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969) can
be punished by government. That means, for example, that you can advocate violence in general, but if you tell people to start rioting right then and there, you can be arrested. The American principle of free speech holds that governments cannot punish even speech
that is intensely upsetting to some people, because government should not be given the power to decide what kinds of speech—and therefore what kinds of thoughts—are acceptable. The best antidote to bad speech is more and better speech, not censorship or jail for those who express thoughts we find hateful.

Additional points for discussion:

  • Some actions are always wrong and are not truly up for debate. The policies that must always be opposed are those which are always wrong no matter what the circumstances, because they go against the natural law or the Ten Commandments. These also always have direct, clear effects: for example, in an abortion, a baby always dies. Euthanasia always results in an elderly, sick, or disabled person being killed. Other policies require more discernment because their effects may not always match up with their intentions. For example, a policy intended to help the poor may not actually help the poor; a law intended to improve education may actually harm it, and so forth. Therefore, these policies can and should be debated by Christians in good conscience. The Church has a responsibility to make judgments in matters where the dignity of the human person and the salvation of souls is at stake.
  • In keeping with the above, scenarios 5 and 6 reminds us that our friends do not have to have the same political views as we do. We should not abandon a friend simply because they believe differently about certain issues that are legitimately up for debate.

Articles:

All of the scenarios are inspired by real-life events, including the following:

He held an unloaded gun off-campus. His school didn’t like it.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/he-held-an-unloaded-gun-off-campus-his-school-didntlike-it/
Student Threatened with Rape for Promoting Marriage at Providence College
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/student-threatened-with-rape-for-promotingmarriage-at-providence-college
Chinese Prom Dress Stirs Cultural Appropriation Debate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/05/01/its-just-a-dressteens-chinese-prom-attire-stirs-cultural-appropriation-debate/
Dozens of Middlebury Students Are Disciplined for Charles Murray Protest
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/middlebury-college-charles-murray-bellcurve.html

Get Support for Your Classroom

Email Our Support Specialist

Get answers to your questions from our support team

Schedule a Call

Get personalized support with one of our education support specialists

×
Event: Registration and login form

Enter Your Password