Skip to main content
Religious Freedom Toolkit

Part IV | Select Quotes from Church Leaders

Category E | Perspectives

Topic 30 | Civil discourse versus the outrage industrial complex

The term “outrage industrial complex” was coined to describe patterns of contemporary political discourse (especially online discourse) that “strokes our own biases while affirming our worst assumptions about those who disagree with us.” Religious freedom is best promoted through facilitating and engaging in civil discourse, focused on the human dignity of all, rather than making excessive emotional appeals.

◆ ◆ ◆

Elder Quentin L. Cook: It is appropriate to disagree, but it is not appropriate to be disagreeable.  

“Be civil in your discourse. We live in a world where there is much turmoil. Our faith requires that we treat our neighbors with respect. In general conference I pointed out, ‘There are some who feel that venting their personal anger or deeply held opinions is more important than conducting themselves as Jesus Christ lived and taught. . . . It is appropriate to disagree, but it is not appropriate to be disagreeable.’”

◆ ◆ ◆

Elder Gerrit W. Gong: We promote peace when all voices seeking the greater good can participate.  

“In today’s world, some argue religious belief inherently leads to violence. However, historical and empirical analysis dispels the ‘myth of religious violence’—the notion that religion ipso facto is somehow responsible for violence. While some professing religious belief are responsible for problems, the more typical causes of violence seem to emanate from the assertion of centralized power attendant to the rise of the modern state (with its general monopoly over the means of violence), the sustaining of contemporary political power, and the influence of nationalism on interstate and international violence.

We promote peace when all voices seeking the greater good can participate, where none is disparaged or denied, even if the inevitable disagreements of healthy pluralism persist.”

◆ ◆ ◆

President Dallin H. Oaks: Far from being a weakness, reconciling adverse positions through respectful negotiation is a virtue.  

“Successful negotiation [of differences] requires that neither side be unduly influenced by the extreme voices that often drive litigation, especially litigation sponsored by ideological groups. Extreme voices influence popular opinion, but they polarize and sow resentment as they seek to dominate their opponents and achieve absolute victory. Such outcomes are rarely sustainable or even attainable, and they are never preferable to living together in mutual understanding and peace.

Good faith negotiation invites that seldom-appreciated virtue so necessary to democracy: tolerance, free of bigotry toward those whose opinions or practices differ from our own. But learning to live with significant differences requires much more than tolerance. Dr. Alwi Shihab, the Indonesian President’s special envoy to the Middle East and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, made this point in an address to the faculty and students at Brigham Young University. Relying on the teachings of the Qur’an, he said:

'We must respect this God-given dignity in every human being, even in our enemies. For the goal of all human relations—whether they are religious, social, political, or economic—ought to be cooperation and mutual respect.'

Thus, he added, ‘We must go . . . beyond tolerance if we are to achieve harmony in the world.’ Obviously, followers of Christ also have a duty to seek harmony. Where there are conflicts, all should seek peace.

Far from being a weakness, reconciling adverse positions through respectful negotiation is a virtue. As Jesus taught, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.’ The Apostle Paul followed this by teaching Christians to ‘follow after the things which make for peace,’ and ‘[i]f it be possible . . . live peaceably with all men.’ Similarly the Book of Mormon teaches that it is a ‘peaceable walk with the children of men’ that distinguishes a true follower of Jesus Christ.”

Previous - Topic 30 Analysis
Next - Topic 31 Summary