Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Beyond Disagreement: A Call for Civility and a Rejection of Violence
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Beyond Disagreement: A Call for Civility and a Rejection of Violence
In the grand, often tumultuous story of the United States, there has always been a tension between our right to speak freely and our responsibility to live together peacefully. Our nation was born from a protest, and our history is filled with moments where passionate citizens stood up, spoke out, and demanded change.
We have a constitutional right to assemble. We have a constitutional right to disagree. But in recent years, something has shifted. The debates we have with our neighbors and fellow citizens—the disagreements that once felt like a healthy, if heated, part of our democracy—have started to feel… different. They have moved from the halls of Congress and the public square, and at times, have spilled into our homes, our families, and our streets.
We’re seeing a new and disturbing trend: the rise of political violence. We've seen it in the attack on Paul Pelosi, the attempted kidnapping of a sitting governor, the shooting of a congressman at a baseball practice, and the recent attacks on political figures and institutions across the country.
But this is not who we are. Our foundational documents—the Constitution and the Federalist Papers—were not just blueprints for a government; they were a roadmap for how to avoid the very chaos we are now facing. They were written by men who were terrified of civil war and mob rule, and they designed a system specifically to channel our disagreements into dialogue, debate, and the ballot box, not into violence and bloodshed.
Today, we’re going to step back from the headlines and the noise. We're going to explore what our core principles actually say about this moment, and why a belief in free speech and peaceful protest is not just an ideal, but a moral and a constitutional necessity. We’ll talk about why just because we disagree with one another politically, it does not mean we can take another person’s life.
This is a conversation about the line we must not cross, and how we can all work to pull our nation back from the brink and toward the peaceful ideals that truly define us.
View all episodes
By Derek GutierrezIn the grand, often tumultuous story of the United States, there has always been a tension between our right to speak freely and our responsibility to live together peacefully. Our nation was born from a protest, and our history is filled with moments where passionate citizens stood up, spoke out, and demanded change.
We have a constitutional right to assemble. We have a constitutional right to disagree. But in recent years, something has shifted. The debates we have with our neighbors and fellow citizens—the disagreements that once felt like a healthy, if heated, part of our democracy—have started to feel… different. They have moved from the halls of Congress and the public square, and at times, have spilled into our homes, our families, and our streets.
We’re seeing a new and disturbing trend: the rise of political violence. We've seen it in the attack on Paul Pelosi, the attempted kidnapping of a sitting governor, the shooting of a congressman at a baseball practice, and the recent attacks on political figures and institutions across the country.
But this is not who we are. Our foundational documents—the Constitution and the Federalist Papers—were not just blueprints for a government; they were a roadmap for how to avoid the very chaos we are now facing. They were written by men who were terrified of civil war and mob rule, and they designed a system specifically to channel our disagreements into dialogue, debate, and the ballot box, not into violence and bloodshed.
Today, we’re going to step back from the headlines and the noise. We're going to explore what our core principles actually say about this moment, and why a belief in free speech and peaceful protest is not just an ideal, but a moral and a constitutional necessity. We’ll talk about why just because we disagree with one another politically, it does not mean we can take another person’s life.
This is a conversation about the line we must not cross, and how we can all work to pull our nation back from the brink and toward the peaceful ideals that truly define us.