Where Do We Go From Here?
A Sermon Delivered at UUSL on November 4, 2018
By Rev. Dr. Judith E. Wright
On Tuesday we can choose to go to the polls and vote..
A privilege that has been hard won.
A right that is in place to preserve our American democracy.
In preparing this sermon I read and re-read and re-read
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s new book,
How Democracies Die. The authors are professors of government at Harvard University.
What’s a minister doing, talking about democracies, you might ask.
Our Fifth UU Principle calls us to the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process
within our congregations and in society at large.
This morning, on the edge of the mid-term elections, I want to reflect with you
on the democracy in society at large in our Fifth Principle.
In their studies of democracies around the world,
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt document certain tell-tale signs
of how a democracy may either weakened or fail.
They warn us that there is nothing in our American constitution
to prevent a democratic breakdown. [1]
The authors remind us that we have, in our American history,
a time when partisan enmities were so severe that our democracy did fail.
America’s democracy was broken by the Civil War.
President Lincoln had a Congress where
one-third of the American States did not participate in the 1864 elections.
Twenty-two of fifty Senate seats
and more than a quarter of the House seats were left vacant. [2]
Because of the terrible cost of the Civil War,
after the war, a number of Americans reassessed the value of the Constitution,
asking themselves:
“Was the Constitution not the providentially inspired document it had been thought to be?”[3]
Then, in 1885 the then political science professor, Woodrow Wilson,
the son of Confederate family, wrote a thesis about the disparity
between the ideals of the Constitution,
and how our democracy actually worked.
Wilson advocated for not only good laws, but for effective norms.[4]
Rebuilding American democratic norms after the Civil War period was not easy.
As the Civil War generation passed away, eventually democratic norms did arise.
Mutual toleration arose as one important norm.
Mutual toleration is, where politicians of different parties accepted one another
as legitimate rivals. They treated their rivals with civility.
However, sadly, such mutual toleration arose only after the removal
of racial equality from the political landscape.. .
The infamous compromise of 1877 stripped away the federal protections of African Americans,
Allowing southern Democrats to undo basic democratic rights and consolidate a single party rule.[5]
And in 1890 when Henry Cabot Lodge’s Federal Election Bill failed,
any hopes of black suffrage were crushed...
Levitsky and Ziblatt, state that: It is difficult to overstate
the tragic significance of these events.
Because civil and voting rights were regarded
by many southern Democrats as a fundamental threat,
the parties’ agreement to abandon those issues
provided a basis for restoring mutual toleration.
What eventually arose from this agreement was, yes, mutual toleration,
But at the cost of racial exclusion and the consolidation of single-party rule in the South.
With this agreement, the polarization between the two parties softened,
bi-partisan cooperation arose,
and mutual tolerance led to the creation of the democratic norm of forbearance.
Forbearance is the concept that politicians should exercise restraint
when they have the edge, politically, for the overall good of the country.
While a party in power could overrule their opponents,
the democratic norm of forbearance held them back.
There was “no winning at any costs” because of this norm of forbearance.
By the late nineteenth century, our democratic system of checks and balances were in place.
These two norms of mutual toleration and institutional forbearance, unwritten as they are,
became major aspects of our democracy’s system of checks and balances.
Even though our American democracy was challenged during the twentieth century,
partisan cooperation met the challenge,
in part through these unwritten norms of mutual toleration and forbearance:-
For example, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s use of excessive executive orders – over 3,000 during his presidency, was checked by bipartisan resistance.
Another example is that of McCartheism in the 1950’s,
which threatened norms of mutual toleration.
At that time, some politicians hurled hateful slogans at their opponents,
attempting to de-legitimize them..
Communist accusations were used for political advantage.
However, McCarthy was eventually stopped, by partisan efforts,
and by the dramatic confrontation on television by the Army chief counsel, Joseph Welch,
who challenged the baselessness of MCarthy’s critical labelling of others, saying:
“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
Six months after this interview, the Senate voted to censor McCarthy. [6]
And thirdly in the 20th century we had the Watergate scandal,
which a number of us can well remember.
Here we had a President who overreached his powers.
President Nixon did not, according to Levitsky and Ziblatt,
ever fully embrace democratic norms of mutual toleration.
He saw his political opponents as enemies and the press as enemies.
He and those around him justified calling political opponents “anarchists and communists,’
saying that they were a threat to American democracy.
Nixon’s illegal wiretapping and surveillance of journalists, opponents, and hundreds of people,
as well as other autocratic actions, as we well know,
were halted by checks on his power as President by the Supreme Court and by the Senate.
Again, it was bipartisan support that created an outcome that saved American democracy.
Thus, in the twentieth century both political parties and society as a whole
pushed back on violations of our democratic processes.
These checks and balances, and democratic norms protected American democracy
in ways not found, for example in Europe in the 1930s when Hitler rose to power.
However, all was not so rosy at that time in this picture of our American democracy.
What was missing was racial inclusion.
As the authors of How Democracies Die state:
“Racial exclusion contributed directly to the partisan civility
and cooperation that came to characterize 20th century American politics’.[7]
The authors conclude that America’s democratic norms were born in a context of exclusion.
Only after World War II and the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 can we finally say
we have a full democracy, here in America.
Levitsky and Ziplatt contend that this full democratization of our country
would lead us to now, 2018,
where we are experiencing the greatest challenges
to our democratic norms of mutual toleration and forbearance.
We are living now in a time of hyper -partisan politics with each side mistrusting the other.
Today our country is exhibiting symptoms of the
weakening and breaking down of democracy
Levitsky and Ziblatt list some traits from such break downs
or weakening of democracies around the world.
Here are just some of the examples they include in their study of how democracies fail:
-Authoritarian leaders attempt to undermine the legitimacy of elections,
by stating that the results were not credible.
-Authoritarian leaders define their opponents as illegitimate, using such terms such as, “criminals,” or “as being unfit to be in public office.”
-Authoritarian leaders around the world do not condemn acts of political violence. They may actively endorse violence by their supporters.
-Authoritarian leaders threaten to take legal action
or other punitive action against critics in rival parties, or the media.
I believe that our American democracy indeed is now weakened,
and we need to be vigilant to get it back on course.
We need to elect people who will help to re-establish the democratic norms,
unwritten norms, that helped our democracy weather difficult times in the past.
Norms of mutual tolerance and forbearance, for example..
where people are willing to step across the aisle,
and work with political opponents for the good of the country.
People who speak to one another, respectfully,
and treated the other person as an equal, regardless of party affiliation.
People who do not question the legitimacy of a rival politician,
but instead focus on the issues at hand
that need to be addressed to help our democracy work well.
Right now we are at the effect of an erosion of mutual toleration and of forbearance in our democracy.
There are many places where we might look to see such a loss of civility.
But one that is glaring right now is the lack of civil rhetoric.
Hateful speech can lead to hateful actions.
As we sadly witnessed as a nation last week.
The Three hate crimes in one week was overwhelming to me, and I suspect
to many or all of you, as well.
First, there was the targeting of about one hundred leaders
within the more progressive aspects of our democracy
with pipe bombs sent through the mail, by one or more persons
filled with hatred towards those leaders who lean on the liberal side of our democracy.
(I don’t want to think about what might have happened if one or all of those bombs went off.
I am very thankful for our secret service and security folks for the incredible job they did).
Secondly, there was the random killing of two African Americans
shopping in a Kroger grocery store in Jefferson City, Kentucky.
The suspected assailant, arrested, is reported to be filled
with hatred for African Americans.
He tried to first get into a predominantly black church, but the doors were locked,
thanks to a security practice put into place after the mass shooting at an African American
church in Charleston, S.C. three years ago.
Then we also know of the mass shooting in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood
at the Tree of Life synagogue.
Eleven people were killed, during a child dedication ceremony.
Here Anti-Semitism and gun violence joined together, hatred and gun violence,
to take away people’s lives, as well as the sacred safety of sanctuary within a religious building.
I understand this morning that I don’t have the big, overall picture
of why all of this is happening, but I do have my own personal reactions.
Allow me to share some with you now.
I have been flooded with images of my daughter, Dianna, and her husband Matt,
who are raising two of my grandchildren, Sophie, now 17, and Abe, 15,
within the Jewish tradition.
I remember well Dianna and Matt’s wedding when the gathering of loved ones
placed me in a chair and swirled me around the room,
high above, as everyone, with great enthusiasm, danced to the Horah.
I remember a recent Hanukah, when I was able to be with Sophie and Ave,
Their parents had to be away, and it was the last day of Hanukah.
My grandchildren knew what to do.
They lit the Menorah, and sang the Hanukah blessing,
with me, as their grandmother, witnessing their love of their God and tradition.
And then, of course, there was their Bar and Bat mitzvahs - joyous events.
In reflecting on why these hate crimes have affected me so deeply,
I realized that in some way, I too was being attacked.
I have always been progressive in my thinking.
I have two adopted children and five grandchildren of color.
And, I experienced, when they lifted me up on that chair at Matt and Dianna’s wedding,
so long ago, an internal gate opening inside of me,
welcoming me into the Jewish way of life.
So, these hate crimes are aimed at me and my loved ones and much that I personally value.
And they are targeted at much that we value as a religious faith.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center,
There are over 917 organized hate groups in the United States.
Looking at the presence of such hate groups on Twitter,
The SPLC found an increase of 900% in the likes and comments of hate groups on Twitter
within the past two years.[8]
The ease with which one can write a message of hate on social media
is coming to bear a horrific harvest of killings, suicides, and inevitable harm.
A recent New York Times article states that social media companies have been unable
to handle the vast quantities of disinformation and hate speech[9],
The man who is accused of sending the pipe bombs and the man who is accused of killing
people at the Tree of Life Synagogue both vented their hatreds on social media outlets.
I believe that if a person has a hashtag that is anonymous on a social media site,
then there is no accountability or responsibility for what one says on-line.
People may become emboldened to say the unthinkable,
and to provoke others to do like- wise.
Every Tuesday night at our UU Buddhist meditation group
as part of our spiritual practice, we recite the Eight-Fold path of the Buddha.
The Buddha taught the Eight Fold Path as a way to lead to Enlightenment.
The third path of the Eight Fold Path is that of skillful speech:
Samaññaphala Sutta states that a part of a person's virtue
is that "one abstains from false speech.
One speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, and is no deceiver of the world.[10]"[6
Similarly, the virtue of abstaining from divisive speech is explained as delighting in creating concord.[11]
The Buddha taught to not use “harsh speech.”
Indeed, in many of the teachings I have received from His Holiness, the Dalai Lama,
he teaches to be helpful in speech and actions where-ever one can,
and if one cannot be helpful, then to create no harm.
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. forewarned us, over fifty years ago
that we will have to decide which way to go:
Where do we go from here? He asked.
And he answered, we go where power is at its best implementing the demands of justice,
And where justice at its best, is power correcting everything that stands against love.
May we, as Unitarian Universalists side with such power and justice,
correcting everything that stands against love.
May we side with love.
Such love that will never erase over one million Americans because of their gender identity.
Such love that will want all Americans to have the right to vote.
Such love that will benefit where it can, and does not harm.
Such love that finds ways to reign in hate speech in the political arena, and on the web.
Such love that values our democratic process,
with our history of unwritten norms of mutual tolerance and forbearance.
May our democracy be strengthened so that future generations –
my beloved grandchildren, Sophie and Abe, Jack and Theo, and Chailee,
and your dear ones, have a country with checks and balances,
and a democracy that is securely in place.
where hatred is banished and love reigns.
May it be so.
Peace and love to you.
[1] Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. Crown Publishing: New York, 2018. p. 204.
[2] Levitsky and Ziblatt, p. 122.
[3] Ibid, p. 122.
[4] Ibid, 123.
[5] P. 124
[6] Ibid, 140.
[7] Ibid, p. 143.
[8] ttps://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/nurturing-self-compassion/201703/the-psychology-hate
[9] ttps://mail.google.com/mail/#search/new+york+times/FMfcgxvzLNfMrWhDvDClHJJwzBbwhZMN
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path#Right_speech
lJuly 2010.
A Sermon Delivered at UUSL on November 4, 2018
By Rev. Dr. Judith E. Wright
On Tuesday we can choose to go to the polls and vote..
A privilege that has been hard won.
A right that is in place to preserve our American democracy.
In preparing this sermon I read and re-read and re-read
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s new book,
How Democracies Die. The authors are professors of government at Harvard University.
What’s a minister doing, talking about democracies, you might ask.
Our Fifth UU Principle calls us to the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process
within our congregations and in society at large.
This morning, on the edge of the mid-term elections, I want to reflect with you
on the democracy in society at large in our Fifth Principle.
In their studies of democracies around the world,
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt document certain tell-tale signs
of how a democracy may either weakened or fail.
They warn us that there is nothing in our American constitution
to prevent a democratic breakdown. [1]
The authors remind us that we have, in our American history,
a time when partisan enmities were so severe that our democracy did fail.
America’s democracy was broken by the Civil War.
President Lincoln had a Congress where
one-third of the American States did not participate in the 1864 elections.
Twenty-two of fifty Senate seats
and more than a quarter of the House seats were left vacant. [2]
Because of the terrible cost of the Civil War,
after the war, a number of Americans reassessed the value of the Constitution,
asking themselves:
“Was the Constitution not the providentially inspired document it had been thought to be?”[3]
Then, in 1885 the then political science professor, Woodrow Wilson,
the son of Confederate family, wrote a thesis about the disparity
between the ideals of the Constitution,
and how our democracy actually worked.
Wilson advocated for not only good laws, but for effective norms.[4]
Rebuilding American democratic norms after the Civil War period was not easy.
As the Civil War generation passed away, eventually democratic norms did arise.
Mutual toleration arose as one important norm.
Mutual toleration is, where politicians of different parties accepted one another
as legitimate rivals. They treated their rivals with civility.
However, sadly, such mutual toleration arose only after the removal
of racial equality from the political landscape.. .
The infamous compromise of 1877 stripped away the federal protections of African Americans,
Allowing southern Democrats to undo basic democratic rights and consolidate a single party rule.[5]
And in 1890 when Henry Cabot Lodge’s Federal Election Bill failed,
any hopes of black suffrage were crushed...
Levitsky and Ziblatt, state that: It is difficult to overstate
the tragic significance of these events.
Because civil and voting rights were regarded
by many southern Democrats as a fundamental threat,
the parties’ agreement to abandon those issues
provided a basis for restoring mutual toleration.
What eventually arose from this agreement was, yes, mutual toleration,
But at the cost of racial exclusion and the consolidation of single-party rule in the South.
With this agreement, the polarization between the two parties softened,
bi-partisan cooperation arose,
and mutual tolerance led to the creation of the democratic norm of forbearance.
Forbearance is the concept that politicians should exercise restraint
when they have the edge, politically, for the overall good of the country.
While a party in power could overrule their opponents,
the democratic norm of forbearance held them back.
There was “no winning at any costs” because of this norm of forbearance.
By the late nineteenth century, our democratic system of checks and balances were in place.
These two norms of mutual toleration and institutional forbearance, unwritten as they are,
became major aspects of our democracy’s system of checks and balances.
Even though our American democracy was challenged during the twentieth century,
partisan cooperation met the challenge,
in part through these unwritten norms of mutual toleration and forbearance:-
For example, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s use of excessive executive orders – over 3,000 during his presidency, was checked by bipartisan resistance.
Another example is that of McCartheism in the 1950’s,
which threatened norms of mutual toleration.
At that time, some politicians hurled hateful slogans at their opponents,
attempting to de-legitimize them..
Communist accusations were used for political advantage.
However, McCarthy was eventually stopped, by partisan efforts,
and by the dramatic confrontation on television by the Army chief counsel, Joseph Welch,
who challenged the baselessness of MCarthy’s critical labelling of others, saying:
“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
Six months after this interview, the Senate voted to censor McCarthy. [6]
And thirdly in the 20th century we had the Watergate scandal,
which a number of us can well remember.
Here we had a President who overreached his powers.
President Nixon did not, according to Levitsky and Ziblatt,
ever fully embrace democratic norms of mutual toleration.
He saw his political opponents as enemies and the press as enemies.
He and those around him justified calling political opponents “anarchists and communists,’
saying that they were a threat to American democracy.
Nixon’s illegal wiretapping and surveillance of journalists, opponents, and hundreds of people,
as well as other autocratic actions, as we well know,
were halted by checks on his power as President by the Supreme Court and by the Senate.
Again, it was bipartisan support that created an outcome that saved American democracy.
Thus, in the twentieth century both political parties and society as a whole
pushed back on violations of our democratic processes.
These checks and balances, and democratic norms protected American democracy
in ways not found, for example in Europe in the 1930s when Hitler rose to power.
However, all was not so rosy at that time in this picture of our American democracy.
What was missing was racial inclusion.
As the authors of How Democracies Die state:
“Racial exclusion contributed directly to the partisan civility
and cooperation that came to characterize 20th century American politics’.[7]
The authors conclude that America’s democratic norms were born in a context of exclusion.
Only after World War II and the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 can we finally say
we have a full democracy, here in America.
Levitsky and Ziplatt contend that this full democratization of our country
would lead us to now, 2018,
where we are experiencing the greatest challenges
to our democratic norms of mutual toleration and forbearance.
We are living now in a time of hyper -partisan politics with each side mistrusting the other.
Today our country is exhibiting symptoms of the
weakening and breaking down of democracy
- Symptoms that have been documented by historians as having occurred
Levitsky and Ziblatt list some traits from such break downs
or weakening of democracies around the world.
Here are just some of the examples they include in their study of how democracies fail:
-Authoritarian leaders attempt to undermine the legitimacy of elections,
by stating that the results were not credible.
-Authoritarian leaders define their opponents as illegitimate, using such terms such as, “criminals,” or “as being unfit to be in public office.”
-Authoritarian leaders around the world do not condemn acts of political violence. They may actively endorse violence by their supporters.
-Authoritarian leaders threaten to take legal action
or other punitive action against critics in rival parties, or the media.
I believe that our American democracy indeed is now weakened,
and we need to be vigilant to get it back on course.
We need to elect people who will help to re-establish the democratic norms,
unwritten norms, that helped our democracy weather difficult times in the past.
Norms of mutual tolerance and forbearance, for example..
where people are willing to step across the aisle,
and work with political opponents for the good of the country.
People who speak to one another, respectfully,
and treated the other person as an equal, regardless of party affiliation.
People who do not question the legitimacy of a rival politician,
but instead focus on the issues at hand
that need to be addressed to help our democracy work well.
Right now we are at the effect of an erosion of mutual toleration and of forbearance in our democracy.
There are many places where we might look to see such a loss of civility.
But one that is glaring right now is the lack of civil rhetoric.
Hateful speech can lead to hateful actions.
As we sadly witnessed as a nation last week.
The Three hate crimes in one week was overwhelming to me, and I suspect
to many or all of you, as well.
First, there was the targeting of about one hundred leaders
within the more progressive aspects of our democracy
with pipe bombs sent through the mail, by one or more persons
filled with hatred towards those leaders who lean on the liberal side of our democracy.
(I don’t want to think about what might have happened if one or all of those bombs went off.
I am very thankful for our secret service and security folks for the incredible job they did).
Secondly, there was the random killing of two African Americans
shopping in a Kroger grocery store in Jefferson City, Kentucky.
The suspected assailant, arrested, is reported to be filled
with hatred for African Americans.
He tried to first get into a predominantly black church, but the doors were locked,
thanks to a security practice put into place after the mass shooting at an African American
church in Charleston, S.C. three years ago.
Then we also know of the mass shooting in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood
at the Tree of Life synagogue.
Eleven people were killed, during a child dedication ceremony.
Here Anti-Semitism and gun violence joined together, hatred and gun violence,
to take away people’s lives, as well as the sacred safety of sanctuary within a religious building.
I understand this morning that I don’t have the big, overall picture
of why all of this is happening, but I do have my own personal reactions.
Allow me to share some with you now.
I have been flooded with images of my daughter, Dianna, and her husband Matt,
who are raising two of my grandchildren, Sophie, now 17, and Abe, 15,
within the Jewish tradition.
I remember well Dianna and Matt’s wedding when the gathering of loved ones
placed me in a chair and swirled me around the room,
high above, as everyone, with great enthusiasm, danced to the Horah.
I remember a recent Hanukah, when I was able to be with Sophie and Ave,
Their parents had to be away, and it was the last day of Hanukah.
My grandchildren knew what to do.
They lit the Menorah, and sang the Hanukah blessing,
with me, as their grandmother, witnessing their love of their God and tradition.
And then, of course, there was their Bar and Bat mitzvahs - joyous events.
In reflecting on why these hate crimes have affected me so deeply,
I realized that in some way, I too was being attacked.
I have always been progressive in my thinking.
I have two adopted children and five grandchildren of color.
And, I experienced, when they lifted me up on that chair at Matt and Dianna’s wedding,
so long ago, an internal gate opening inside of me,
welcoming me into the Jewish way of life.
So, these hate crimes are aimed at me and my loved ones and much that I personally value.
And they are targeted at much that we value as a religious faith.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center,
There are over 917 organized hate groups in the United States.
Looking at the presence of such hate groups on Twitter,
The SPLC found an increase of 900% in the likes and comments of hate groups on Twitter
within the past two years.[8]
The ease with which one can write a message of hate on social media
is coming to bear a horrific harvest of killings, suicides, and inevitable harm.
A recent New York Times article states that social media companies have been unable
to handle the vast quantities of disinformation and hate speech[9],
The man who is accused of sending the pipe bombs and the man who is accused of killing
people at the Tree of Life Synagogue both vented their hatreds on social media outlets.
I believe that if a person has a hashtag that is anonymous on a social media site,
then there is no accountability or responsibility for what one says on-line.
People may become emboldened to say the unthinkable,
and to provoke others to do like- wise.
Every Tuesday night at our UU Buddhist meditation group
as part of our spiritual practice, we recite the Eight-Fold path of the Buddha.
The Buddha taught the Eight Fold Path as a way to lead to Enlightenment.
The third path of the Eight Fold Path is that of skillful speech:
Samaññaphala Sutta states that a part of a person's virtue
is that "one abstains from false speech.
One speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, and is no deceiver of the world.[10]"[6
Similarly, the virtue of abstaining from divisive speech is explained as delighting in creating concord.[11]
The Buddha taught to not use “harsh speech.”
Indeed, in many of the teachings I have received from His Holiness, the Dalai Lama,
he teaches to be helpful in speech and actions where-ever one can,
and if one cannot be helpful, then to create no harm.
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. forewarned us, over fifty years ago
that we will have to decide which way to go:
Where do we go from here? He asked.
And he answered, we go where power is at its best implementing the demands of justice,
And where justice at its best, is power correcting everything that stands against love.
May we, as Unitarian Universalists side with such power and justice,
correcting everything that stands against love.
May we side with love.
Such love that will never erase over one million Americans because of their gender identity.
Such love that will want all Americans to have the right to vote.
Such love that will benefit where it can, and does not harm.
Such love that finds ways to reign in hate speech in the political arena, and on the web.
Such love that values our democratic process,
with our history of unwritten norms of mutual tolerance and forbearance.
May our democracy be strengthened so that future generations –
my beloved grandchildren, Sophie and Abe, Jack and Theo, and Chailee,
and your dear ones, have a country with checks and balances,
and a democracy that is securely in place.
where hatred is banished and love reigns.
May it be so.
Peace and love to you.
[1] Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. Crown Publishing: New York, 2018. p. 204.
[2] Levitsky and Ziblatt, p. 122.
[3] Ibid, p. 122.
[4] Ibid, 123.
[5] P. 124
[6] Ibid, 140.
[7] Ibid, p. 143.
[8] ttps://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/nurturing-self-compassion/201703/the-psychology-hate
[9] ttps://mail.google.com/mail/#search/new+york+times/FMfcgxvzLNfMrWhDvDClHJJwzBbwhZMN
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path#Right_speech
lJuly 2010.