The Power of Music

Thanks to John Fea for pointing out this powerful video. Like John, I could do without the constant reference to a particular brand of mp3 player, since this is really about the power of music, not about any particular brand.

The Hidden Side of Monticello

Thanks to John Fea for the link to this video from a new project about the slaves that once called Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello “home”. Just Friday I was reading about Jefferson in Fea’s Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? The book is an essential read for those wanting a full historical treatment of that question. I hope to review it in a little more detail at some point once I manage to finish it. To be fair, Jefferson wanted to end the institution of slavery, at least according to his writings and actions (he presented legislation to that effect, but none of it ever was passed). However, he only ever freed a handful of his personal slaves, and his life at Monticello relied on their free labor. Check out this piece, and see the links at Dr. Fea’s site for more information on the project at Monticello.

Rick Santorum’s Theme Song?

Not sure if this effects my vote (or lack thereof), but I can certainly see this becoming an internet sensation. (HT: John Fea)

The Power of Introverts

This is an amazing and powerful talk from Susan Cain at TED this year about the power of introverts. She suggests that our current education and work environments have shifted from catered toward introverts to heavily favoring extroverts. She asks for us to provide space for both. This is worth the listen, and consideration for everyone, especially those in management or education. Can’t help but think about some of my favorite introverts, like my dad the pastor, my friend, blogger, and writing cabin fan John Fea, and funny and creative mom and blogger Cindy King.

The History of Church vs. State in the U.S.

(Illustration by Jennifer Hewitson / For The LA Times)

John M. Barry offers a little historical perspective on the origins of the church/state relation debate. Not too surprisingly, the debate about the relationship between church and government in the US dates back to the earliest colonies. Barry looks specifically at the Massachusetts Bay Colony and more specifically the thoughts of Roger Williams. Here is a taste. (HT: John Fea)

The church-state conflict began when Puritans, envisioning a Christian nation, founded what John Winthrop called “a citty upon a hill” in Massachusetts, and Williams rejected that vision for another: freedom. He insisted that the state refrain from intervening in the relationship between humans and God, stating that even people advocating “the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or Antichristian consciences and worships” be allowed to pray — or not pray — freely, and that “forced worship stinks in God’s nostrils.”

Yet Williams was no atheist. He was a devout Puritan minister who, like other Massachusetts Puritans, fled religious persecution in England. Upon his arrival in 1631 he was considered so godly that Boston Puritans had asked him to lead their church. He declined — because he considered their church insufficiently pure.

Reverence for both Scripture and freedom led Williams to his position. His mentor was Edward Coke, the great English jurist who ruled, “The house of every one is as his castle,” extending the liberties of great lords — and an inviolate refuge where one was free — to the lowest English commoners. Coke pioneered the use of habeas corpus to prevent arbitrary imprisonment. And when Chancellor of England Thomas Egerton said, “Rex est lex loquens; the king is the law speaking,” and agreed that the monarch could “suspend any particular law” for “reason of state,” Coke decreed instead that the law bound the king. Coke was imprisoned — without charge — for his view of liberty, but that same view ran in Williams’ veins.

Equally important to Williams was Scripture. Going beyond the “render unto Caesar” verse in the New Testament, he recognized the difficulty in reconciling contradictory scriptural passages as well as different Bible translations. He even had before him an example of a new translation that served a political purpose. King James had disliked the existing English Bible because in his view it insufficiently taught obedience to authority; the King James Bible would correct that.

Given these complexities, Williams judged it impossible for any human to interpret all Scripture without error. Therefore he considered it “monstrous” for one person to impose any religious belief on another. He also realized that any government-sponsored prayer required a public official to pass judgment on something to do with God, a sacrilegious presumption. He also knew that when one mixes religion and politics, one gets politics. So to protect the purity of the church, he demanded — 150 years before Jefferson — a “wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.”

Interesting side note in there about the history of the King James Bible. Funny that it is often seen as the epitome of the unbiased standard against which new version are compared for any attempt to change the language, while it is a biased translation to begin with!

Is Obama Really a Conservative?

On the heels of the kerfuffle over John Fea claiming that Barack Obama is the most explicitly Christian president the US has ever had, I was pointed by a friend (thanks Adam Yankay!) to a thought provoking piece from The Political Compass that places Obama clearly on the conservative end of the political spectrum. Here is a chunk of their post.

This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state, masquerading as a two-party state.

The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals.Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. We list these because many of Obama’s detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008′s yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don’t promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he’s a man of so few fixed principles.

As outrageous as it may appear, civil libertarians and human rights supporters would have actually fared better under a Republican administration. Had a Bush or McCain presidency continued Guantanamo and introduced the NDAA, the Democratic Party would have howled from the rooftops. Under a Democratic administration, these far-reaching developments have received scant opposition and a disgraceful absence of mainstream media coverage.

For the rest, including comments on Ron Paul, check it out here. You can also find a link there where they explain their methodology. They also offer a survey that allows you to find where on this you would be. Can’t wait until Glenn Beck sees this!

Can Glenn Beck Read?

Dr. John Fea

I’m not so sure after the uproar of the last week or so. It all started with a post by my friend and colleague John Fea. Dr. Fea is the chair of the Department of History here at Messiah College, a thoughtful Christian, and an exemplary historian specializing in early American History. He is very careful to approach his craft in a way that allows his beliefs to inform his work, but never to turn his work into propaganda in support of his views. The furor erupted over what, in my opinion, is a gross inability of Glenn Beck to let the facts stand in the way of a good story that he could gain publicity from.

The kerfuffle is based on an interesting piece by Dr. Fea on Patheos a week or so ago. Dr. Fea points out that President Barack Obama has cited his faith as a part of his policy-making and life at a level that is somewhat unprecedented. In fact, after citing some examples, Dr. Fea makes the statement:

Obama may be the most explicitly Christian president in American history.

Now, this is not a proclamation, of course. Dr. Fea qualifies the statement with “may be”, but Beck and his disciples seem to have not been able to read that part. They have accused Dr. Fea of stating that Obama is the most explicitly Christian president in American history. Here is the whole paragraph in context:

Obama may be the most explicitly Christian president in American history. If we analyze his language in the same way that historians examine the religious language of the Founding Fathers or even George W. Bush, we will find that Obama’s piety, use of the Bible, and references to Christian faith and theology put most other American presidents to shame on this front. I think there may be good reasons why some people will not vote for Obama in November, but his commitment to Christianity is not one of them.

Worse than just missing  the “may be”, they also seem to not know what explicitly means. How Beck, and his disciples, read this as an endorsement of Obama’s theology is beyond me. Dr. Fea does not even say that Obama is, in fact, a Christian, let alone an exemplary one. He is simply saying that Obama has been more public about his claimed faith. He also says that Christians can’t really find fault with his commitment to Christianity as a basis for voting against him. Can we find fault with his personal theology? Sure. Can we disagree with how he thinks his faith should be worked out in policy? Of course. Do we have any real evidence that he is not a Christian or is not committed to his faith? No. Sorry. I didn’t vote for him in 2008, but I have no doubt that he is a Christian, and find claims that he is a Muslim laughable.

Now, one might ask if the problem is that Beck views Dr. Fea as a liberal shill for Obama. The answer is clearly a resounding no, if you take the time to read the rest of the article. Here is the last two paragraphs of the original:

Unfortunately, for all of his religious rhetoric, Obama the president has failed to articulate the faith-based political vision he promised us that night in the tiny village of Grantham, Pennsylvania. His handling of the recent contraception issue was a disaster. He missed a wonderful opportunity to explain his health care proposal—disparaged by the GOP as “Obamacare”—as a direct extension of his Christian convictions to care for the poor and the needy. He has failed in his promise to reduce abortions in the United States and, as a result, protect the weakest and most vulnerable of the “least of these.” His plan to tax the richest members of society is driven by populist rhetoric, but it lacks a prophetic edge informed by the radical implications of Jesus’s teachings in the Gospels.

If Obama wins in 2012, we will see his true colors on matters of faith and policy. Without another election to worry about, he can either turn toward secularism or provide a vision of faith-based political action that would be quite different from what the Christian Right and his GOP rivals are offering. Will we get the Obama of the Compassion Forum or the Obama of the last three years?

This is certainly no endorsement of Obama. This seems to be Dr. Fea calling for Obama to actually deliver on the rhetoric in which he is so “explicitly Christian”. Somehow the few comments I read through seemed to miss this entirely. Perhaps they never bothered to read the second page of the piece? I wish that his pieces would be one page, but it is always worth clicking for page 2 when needed. To raise a furor about this radical professor without actually taking the time to read the whole piece and actually evaluate the claims is another sign of what is wrong with our current political climate, and why I have no way to argue with those Christians who have decided to withdraw from the voting/political process. (see this post from yesterday)

The only redeeming quality about the furor is that perhaps some have read the whole piece and realized that Beck is wrong in his characterization of Dr. Fea. I want to also point my readers to read the whole thing, but also to consider the response of Dr. Fea. After dealing with an inbox and voice-mail box filled with vitriol from those who believed Beck’s lies and misrepresentation, Dr. Fea offered grace-filled response on his blog. Here is a taste, but I suggest that reading the whole thing will give a more balanced perspective on the type of faculty I get to work with here.

I do not want to dwell on this too much.  As a writer I realize that in the United States people are free to disagree.  I guess that comes with the territory.  But I would like to at least make two comments:

1.  I continue to stand by my argument about Barack Obama being the most explicitly Christian president in American history.  Perhaps I could have said this more clearly, but I do not know of any president (certainly not Washington, Adams, or Jefferson, the three presidents who I focused on in my book Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?) who has talked more openly about his Christian faith than Obama.  If future historians judge Obama’s rhetoric in the same way that today’s historians judge the rhetoric of George Washington or John Adams or any other president, they will conclude that Obama has used his faith as part of his public rhetoric to a much greater extent than these Founders.  When I wrote this I was not making a statement about whether Obama utilizes Christian faith correctly or not.  I was rather making a statement about how explicitly Christian Obama’s rhetoric happens to be.

I do not agree with many of Obama’s policies.   Some of my agreements stem from my Christian faith.  I tried to reference some of my disappointment with Obama in my Patheos piece.  But when Obama says he is a Christian, I take him at his word.  I think Jesus said something about he who is without sin cast the first stone.

2.  After what happened to me today I am even more deeply convinced about the need for civil dialogue in America.  You can read the comments for yourself, but I would say that most of the 800 comments on The Blaze have nothing to do with the argument of my piece.  They instead focused on the controversial headline.

But even if some of Glenn Beck’s followers did read the whole piece and concluded that they disagreed with my argument, the level of vitriol I have experienced today has made me concerned for our country.  How can democracy flourish without civility, respect for those with whom we differ, and a sense of mutual understanding?  I continue to believe that the answer lies in education, particularly in history and the other humanities.  It is these disciplines that have the potential to bring meaningful change to the world because they are rooted in virtues such as intellectual hospitality, empathy, understanding, and civility.

My Christian faith and my vocation as a historian remind me that we are human beings, created in the image of God, and thus worthy of respect.  My Christian faith and my vocation as a historian calls me to listen to those with whom I might disagree and perhaps even learn something from them.  To do otherwise is a failure to love my neighbor (Mt. 22:39–I did not feel much love from my Christian brothers and sisters who wrote to me today).  My Christian faith and my vocation as a historian teaches me humility and reminds me that sometimes I may need to sacrifice my own deeply held convictions for a better opinion.

Democracy does not require us to abandon our most cherished beliefs.  Far from it.  Democracy implies that we bring our cherished beliefs to the public arena (and the Internet) with vigor.  A democracy offers the opportunity to debate others with whom we differ and try to convince them–rationally and civilly–to come over to our point of view.  As Christians, we are required by God to love our enemies, but in the process we might even learn something from them.  The cultivation of this kind of democratic culture is America’s best hope.

Thanks, John, for being willing to model Christian grace and civility despite the mean-spirited nature of the attacks on him. If Beck (who ironically is a Mormon, which many Christians would classify as outside orthodox faith), had offered the same grace-filled response to Dr. Fea and started a dialogue, the situation might have caused more growth and understanding, rather than furthering the negative nature of politics in the US. I am thankful that there are still moderate voices who seek to understand and reason with others, rather than simply out-shout their opponents. If I had any respect for Glenn Beck, this might have been the final straw. Of course, I lost my respect for Beck long ago, and this situation seems in conflict with his pledge of nonviolence which promised more civility.

———————————-

Note: I am intentionally not linking to Beck’s website which helped escalate the issue since driving more hits for him would only compound the problem since it would encourage him to continue making money off of this type of con.

Also, comments that resort to personal attacks or add to the vitriol will not be approved, or will be deleted. Comments adding voices to the discussion in a civil fashion are welcomed.

Reflecting on Imperfect Heroes

¹⁰ as it is written,

“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
¹¹ THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
¹² ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”
¹³ “THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,”
“THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”;
¹⁴ “WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”;
¹⁵ “THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
¹⁶ DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
¹⁷ AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.”
¹⁸ “THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.” (Romans 3.10-18 NASB)

I couldn’t help but think of this as I contemplated the death of Joe Paterno this weekend. I was intrigued, though not surprised, by the reaction. Some of my friends, many with ties to Penn State wanted to put aside the recent revelations about Paterno’s poor handling of what he has admitted he knew about the actions of Jerry Sandusky and simply praise the legend that we all thought we knew to be above critique as a man, if not as a coach. Others wanted to say all of that didn’t matter in the shadow of the Sandusky scandal. I can’t help but think that these extremes, while tempting, are simply easy alternatives to admitting that Paterno was a man, like all of us, who had good and bad times. He often made good decisions, and certainly should be applauded for not simply amassing his wealth for himself and seeking the bigger paycheck. He was faithful to Penn State, and donated millions back to the University.

On the other hand, we must admit that his ego has been reported to be large, especially late in his career. It has been a long time since Penn State has been relevant on the national stage in any consistent sense. Partially, this is due to Paterno’s entrenched opinions and unwillingness to change significantly. While the defenses have been consistently good, if not great, the offense has rarely been the envy of anyone. Coaches on his staff rarely were replaced, despite lackluster seasons. The insulated nature of the staff probably contributed to the culture that allegedly allowed Sandusky continued access to the program and facilities long after allegations of impropriety had caused him to be “banned” from the building.

The lesson? None of us is perfect. Some of us tend to overlook our shortcomings and dwell on the good we see in ourselves. Others are more prone to flagellate themselves over every failure and overlook their many good qualities. The truth is that we should keep both in mind. We should also keep in mind that all of the people around us have both as well. Even the biggest villain has some good attributes, and even the most saintly person we know has inner struggles we may never see. Have the revelations about Sandusky changed who Joe Paterno was? No. They have simply revealed things we didn’t know. We ought always to offer grace and mercy to those around us whose struggles are most visible, and refrain from sanctifying others when we know that they are human, and therefore have issues and struggles we know little about.

I leave the decision on his soul to the One who alone makes that determination, but I pray for mercy, as I would want were I in his position.

——————————-

Over at The Way of Improvement Leads Home today, John Fea offers a couple of links to takes on this, but also offers an analysis that agrees with mine, just from his perspective as an historian.

As a historian, I think that there are a few things we have to remember as we assess the legacy of Joe Paterno.

1. It is difficult to give a fair assessment of Paterno’s legacy while we are still caught up in the emotions of his death and the whole Sandusky affair.

2.  When we put our confidence in people, whether they lived in the past or live in the present, we are likely to be inspired by them, but we are just as likely to be disappointed.  There are no heroes in history–we are flawed human beings.  There are no villains in history–we, in the eyes of God, all possess dignity and worth.

You can find his links here.

John Fea on the Democracy and this Election Cycle

South Carolina Republican presidential candidate debate, 16 Jan. 2012, in Myrtle Beach, S.C. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

Several great posts from John Fea about the election cycle and how Christians can think faithfully about the role of government and the process of democracy. John is the chair of the Department of History at Messiah College (where I am on the faculty and teach statistics). I’ll highlight two of them here, but you can check out more on his Patheos channel or his blog, The Way of Improvement Leads Home. He’s had a lot of good things to say!

First, some thoughts about how Christians should think about democracy. Here is a taste:

Alexis de Tocqueville, the great 19th-century observer of the political culture of the United States, equated American democracy with a system of morality. He wrote that “the majority [in America] possess a power that is physical and moral at the same time, which acts upon the will as much as upon the actions and represses not only all contest, but all controversy.” In a democracy the will of the majority becomes the highest good. Sometimes the convictions of the majority will be compatible with Christian ethical teaching, but sometimes they will not.

American history abounds with examples in which democracy as a moral system has come into conflict with a competing moral system informed by something other than the will of the majority. In the mid-19^th century, for example, democracy manifested itself in the political principle known as “popular sovereignty.” In the context of westward expansion, popular sovereignty meant that the people of a given territory could decide whether or not slavery would be permitted within their boundaries. Such a belief in popular sovereignty meant that it was possible that slavery could extend throughout the continent as long as 51 percent of the people in a given territory thought it was a good idea.

You can check out the rest here.

More recently, Fea offered an opinion piece in reflection on the South Carolina Republican debate and the rhetoric of war. Here is a taste:

Nearly all the candidates on the stage in Myrtle Beach have claimed to be people of faith. Rick Perry is an evangelical Christian. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are Catholics. Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Ron Paul does not wear his faith on his sleeve, but he is a Baptist. All of these faith traditions believe that human beings are created in the image of God and thus have inherent dignity and worth.

During the debate, both Gingrich and Romney lauded their “pro-life” record. But anyone who listened carefully would have smelled hypocrisy.

When asked about whether he would have pursued and killed Osama Bin Laden, Ron Paul said that he would, but he did not see how this issue was relevant to the 2012 presidential election. Paul decried American war-mongering and said that if he were president he would do his best to keep the United States out of foreign wars. He then said that U.S. foreign policy should be based on the “golden rule”–do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” He was booed for even making such a suggestion.

Sensing an opportunity, Newt Gingrich called Paul’s remarks “utterly irrational.” He then invoked former U.S. president Andrew Jackson, a South Carolina native: “Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about America’s enemies: Kill them.” The crowd went wild. As Fox News cameras flashed to the audience, television viewers could see South Carolina Republicans rise to their feet, fists-pumping, cheering on the Catholic presidential candidate with a supposedly impeccable “pro-life” record who just used the killing of another human being and a reference to one of the most ruthless military leaders in American history to score political points.

Not to be outdone by Gingrich’s utter disrespect for human life, Mitt Romney, seeing the kind of support Gingrich’s remark received from the bloodthirsty crowd, said, in regard to the Taliban and Al Queda, “these people declared war on us. They’ve killed Americans. We go anywhere they are, and we kill them.” More applause: Kill ‘em! Kill em!

I am not a pacifist. On rare occasions I believe war is appropriate in order to preserve peace and maintain justice. I believe that evil exists in the world and it must be confronted. I supported George W. Bush when he sent American troops to hunt down Osama. Yet the flippant way in which these GOP candidates disregarded human life on Monday night deeply disturbed me. I hope it might disturb any Christian. Life is sacred because it comes from God. These candidates should think twice before disrespecting God’s highest form of creation in order to get applause lines and votes. Shame on them!

Check out the rest here.

Fea on Historians as Activists

Dr. John Fea

In today’s installment of Dr. John Fea (friend and chair of the Department of History here at Messiah College), Fea turns his attention to the role of historians in modern culture. Here is a bit of his take:

There are a variety of ways to think about how a historian might be an agent for change. For example, some might say that the historian has the responsibility find heroes in the past that inspire us to beneficent action in the present. A Christian historian might challenge us to draw inspiration from Billy Graham’s commitment to evangelism, or Dietrich Boenhoffer’s resistance to Hitler, or Martin Luther King’s fight for civil rights, or Susan B. Anthony’s battle for women’s suffrage. In this model, the past serves the present only when we focus on its heroes.

Such a view of the past is evident in a recent study by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) concluding that school students are widely ignorant of the civil rights movement. Such a lack of knowledge is problematic, the study argues, because schools that do not adequately teach their students about this great reform movement in American history fail in their responsibility “to educate…citizens to be agents of change.” The implication is that the study of the past is important because it produces activists.

The “past as inspiration” model has its merits. No one will disagree with the notion that the study of heroic individuals in the past can spur us on to great deeds in the present. The past should be inspirational. We should celebrate its heroes and then do our best, in the words of Jesus in Luke 10:37, to “go and do likewise.”

But such an approach to the study of the past has its limits. All of us know that sometimes—perhaps more often than not—the past does not inspire. It is filled with brokenness and sin. It is filled with people who we may not want our kids know about. The study of the past always reminds us that we live in a fallen world.

When confronted with a past where heroes are hard to find, we often use the past as a morality tale. The inspirational figures inspire us, but the darker figures serve as examples of what we must avoid in the present and the future. How many times have you heard someone say that we must study the past so that “we do not make the same mistakes all over again?” In this model, which gets us closer to what students of the past actually do for society, the historian serves as a watchdog. He or she reminds us where we have been and alerts us to when we start to travel down paths that have been unproductive, morally suspect, or downright disastrous.

Indeed, historians can make a major contribution to the world by inspiring us and reminding us where we have been in the past and where we may not want to go in the future. But neither of these approaches to the study of history and its relationship to society are what primarily motivates someone like Tara in her work among the children of Africa.

Tara landed this job because she was able to articulate the ways in which her study of history has cultivated virtues in her life that are necessary to engage a world that is different from her own. Anyone who regularly reads this column knows that I am convinced that history, as a way of thinking about the world, teaches us virtues that are absolutely essential for life in a civil society. History is the antidote to the shouting matches we call the “culture wars.” And, as I have argued before, it can also draw us closer to God.

As a student of history, Tara learned to listen to voices from the past, to walk in the shoes of others (even if they were dead), to step outside her own moment in time and her own self-interested approach to the world and try to understand as—difficult as that might be—the hopes, dreams, struggles, and mindsets of people who were different than her, or who were from another era, or who held beliefs that did not conform to her own world view. In this sense, the study of history humanized her. If history can help us have better marriages, it can also help us to be reconcilers and humble servants to those in need.

(You can read the rest here.) Interesting thoughts. Having taken AP American History in high school, I didn’t take a “history course” here at Messiah College as an undergrad, though the general education track had a lot of history pieces to it. I do think the type of thinking that Fea espouses here is valuable whenever we deal with others, even our neighbors or colleagues!