Religion and Politics.

[LWolf]

The two subjects my mother raised me to treat as "not for public discussion." Good manners, community, and respect for diversity meant that we didn't discuss these topics in public. We saved those topics for gatherings of like-minded people; in church, or at political meetings.

She had a point. When you live within a community of people who believe differently than you do, it's still important to be a member of that community. If you want to benefit the community, you find the things you have in common, set your differences aside, and focus on those things. In the process, you meet people who believe differently, and find that they are actually worthy individuals who you are the better for meeting, even if you disagree with them in some areas. Together, you get necessary tasks accomplished for the community.

That particular cultural practice, of keeping your religion and politics at home, has obviously become ancient history. While American culture glories in fear, hate, bad manners, disrespect, bullying, and "letting it all hang out" for the purposes of "winning" or "converting," the polarization has ensured that no real issue will ever see honest consideration and action from all sides working together. It is a disease shutting down efficient functioning.

In the rush to judge, condemn, and "beat" all who we disagree with, we are part of the problem.

I've been surrounded by people of multiple political persuasions and faiths all of my life. Guess what? I know many republicans that I respect and have been able to work with. I don't agree with their politics. If I were constantly hitting them over the head with that, we'd never have gotten to know one another, and our lives would be poorer for that.

I can say the same for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindi, Pagans, Atheists, agnostics, and many variations and offshoots of the above.

It's ok to say that you appreciate something that someone says or does without being "wrong," a "traitor" to the cause, or needing people to gang up on you. It's ok to discuss sensitive issues without looking for a reason to start a fight. What has this nation become? We are so addicted to fighting that we eagerly look for an opening in any conversation? Is there a way to express concern or disagreement with some fundamental respect? Or even with appreciation for another's experience and perspective, even if we think it's "wrong?"

Or is it all, really, about religious and political bullying?

[vickitulsa]

1. Excellent, thoughtful essay!

Are we facing the process of entropy?

If we ignore them, they don't go away (the "bad guys").

If we stoop to their level, we become them.

Inertia, in both its forms, can be a killer.

Sooo ... IS entropy inevitable?


I'm still hoping (faintly) for something cyclical to kick into action -- a collective resolve to clean up what's been soiled and abused to the detriment of almost everyone.

Your points are all good, and well taken.

[LWolf]

2. My current feeling is of inevitability.

I think the decay of the current system is inevitable at this point. The signs are there, in any direction I turn to look.

That leaves me, the eternal optimist, hoping to find/create a new, clean system for humanity on the planet, and for what is left of the United States.

It's shocking to me, really, how quickly Jeffer's "shining republic" perishes, historically speaking. I don't feel like we are "shining" anymore; we are rotting fruit. Still, the metaphor helps me to remember the natural cycle of things, and that the seeds are left for new life when this season is over.

Shine, Perishing Republic

While this America settles in the mould of its vulgarity, heavily thickening
to empire
And protest, only a bubble in the molten mass, pops and sighs out, and the
mass hardens,
I sadly smiling remember that the flower fades to make fruit, the fruit rots
to make earth.
Out of the mother; and through the spring exultances, ripeness and decadence;
and home to the mother.
You making haste haste on decay: not blameworthy; life is good, be it stubbornly
long or suddenly
A mortal splendor: meteors are not needed less than mountains:
shine, perishing republic.
But for my children, I would have them keep their distance from the thickening
center; corruption
Never has been compulsory, when the cities lie at the monster's feet there
are left the mountains.
And boys, be in nothing so moderate as in love of man, a clever servant,
insufferable master.
There is the trap that catches noblest spirits, that caught – they say –
God, when he walked on earth.

-- Robinson Jeffers

[CanonRay]

3. My mother taught me the same thing.

I grew up not knowing what religion my best friends practiced. I remember being surprised in high school when I learned one of them was Greek Orthodox. I just never mattered.

[LWolf]

8. I think it is a wonderful thing,

the way we can learn to value others in our lives without reference to faith or politics. It seems to me like a kind of bigotry, to sort people out and put value labels on them according to faith or politics.

[The2ndWheel]

11. We're always facing the process of entropy

It's why we die. It's why we need energy. It's why empires both rise and fall every time. It's why the NSA will eventually have that database on everyone. That is the centrally organized system fighting against disorder. It's why the sun will burn out in a few billion years. It's why humans don't really like evolution, we much prefer control and manipulation.

Entropy is quite inevitable.

[vickitulsa]

13. Of course you're right.

I was trying to use it in a sort of metaphorical sense, but either way, entropy is a fact as far as I can see.

Does it apply equally well to short time frames as to long ones, though? Is the United States "fated" to devolve into chaos before it can be rebuilt?

Sure seems so, the way things are going....

[bryant69]

4. Two great tastes that taste awful together

My opinion is that Religion and Politics are involved in solving different problems, and that using religion to solve political problems is like using a hammer to saw through a 2 by 4 - not efficient. I have no problem with expressions of faith - because that's part of what a person is, but trying to apply faith to specific political problems doesn't work.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LWolf]

6. These days it's pretty hard to separate the 2.

Religion is like politics, when different organizations compete to collect the most converts and increase their political clout. Politics can mirror religion when political denominations are held sacred, when members follow their leaders unquestioningly, when questioning, criticizing, or correcting your own is somehow sacrilege.

In reality, we all bring our convictions to the shop with us for any project, whether they be based on faith, science, personal experience, or education. Whatever political solution we arrive at, our beliefs will have flavored it, because we just don't leave parts of ourselves behind. Using religion as an overt tool to affect politics is, as you say inefficient. It can also be destructive or limiting. When policy can be crafted to include some universal truths or values, religion is included by default, and without harm. I think there are ways to address most hot-button issues without religious absolutes, that still incorporate some strands of belief.

Universal health care, for example. I think people of all politics and faiths, if not economic classes, can come together to agree that people ought to be able to get quality health care when they need it without financially destroying the rest of their lives. That's based on valuing life, which can be a universally shared value when applied in a broad sense. The harm comes from trying to apply religous dogma in narrow, prescripted, more specific controls over people. Religion as control, instead of religion as choice.

I appreciate the opportunity to engage in mutually thoughtful discussion here at DU as well, whether I share a poster's pov or not.

[Toots]

5. yes very good advice and my mother taught me the same thing but....

Then along came Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrinch and Ann Coulter and well, we see how they have infected America. Now it is Fascism all the way and scorched earth policy..I long for the days of civility...

[LWolf]

7. Yes.

I guess my point would be this:

If we think a person, or a group, lacks civility, we don't have to join them. We grow incivility in our culture when we take part in it.

If people didn't participate, Rush etc. would meet crickets on the airwaves, and wouldn't have lasted this long.

Civility starts at home. I need to make sure that my public discourse is civil, and that I don't get sucked into the current "bully culture." If each of us did that, how many people would be modeling a better way? How would the bully culture survive, starved of victims or participants?

[Toots]

9. That is why the Democrats have been on the losing end of the deal

for at least a decade or more. They have continued being civil in a world where civility no longer exists..While I agree with the sentiments I think we are beyond that. Pandoras box was opened...

[LWolf]

17. I disagree.

Incivility is not an evil inflicted on us because someone, or some group, used it as a weapon. It's a choice, moment by moment, day by day, lifetime by lifetime.

I also disagree that civility is what has cost Democrats elections. There are numerous factors that make up those losses, including voter apathy, election fraud, corrupt corporate media participating in uninterrupted propaganda, and, yes, faulty strategies for dealing with opposition, and faulty campaigns. Some faulty actions while in office, as well.

To become the enemy in order to defeat them is not, in any sense of the word, "winning." I've won nothing if I end up an incivil bully who just wants the march to empire to carry a "D" instead of an "R."

I've seen plenty of incivility between and from those labeled "D" right here on this board. Incivility Blvd. runs both ways, and I see some "Ds" mirroring the name-calling, arrogance, judgemental attitude, hate, derision, and "ends justifies the means" tactics that they decry from Republicans. Somehow, I don't think that's the way to influence votes. I think it makes potential voters take a big step back, or even go another direction.

How many people don't cast a vote for either major party?

[Toots]

29. I did not mean to insinuate that Dems start becoming uncivil to fight back

I agree with your sentiments completely but I just think it isn't going to come about. I don't know if it ever truly was the way you (and I) wish it were but if we try at least on a personal basis it can't but help..

[LWolf]

31. You've got that right.

It's never been ideal; what is considered civility, and manners, evolves within cultures. The social "rule" I referenced comes from a time where manners were valued, but that doesn't mean that things were always "civil." Hate, intolerance, haves and have-nots, empire makers, powerholders, disenfranchised...they were all there, of course.

Trying to exhibit a desired quality on a personal basis is how evolution eventually comes about. If we want to see a respectful world, we act and speak with respect, and we do what we can to support the efforts of others.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. And one can be civil without being a wimp

That's almost a lost art these days. :-(

[vickitulsa]

14. I definitely see your point and agree with you.

But here's my current dilemma, for example.

I'm troubled very deeply by the recent torture bill, as many here at DU have indicated they are as well.

Yet just last night I began writing down some of my thoughts on the broader issue, and I came up with the following "essay" on the topic.

~~~~~~~~~~

Why are we shocked when we see that torture is now an accepted practice even among those who are supposed to be the "good guys"?

Hollywood and the video game industry have been preparing Americans and a lot of others around the world for tolerating something as vile as torture simply by incorporating it into their products every chance they get.

The violence, and the coldly calculating torture -- that's all rampant and pervasive among the most popular movies, TV dramas, and video games that are rated for "adults" or at least "teens," but in reality we know such products reach even the very young children in societies.

Americans watch with eager anticipation as Jack Bauer on Fox's hit drama series "24" engages in torture of a "suspect" -- because he can't get the information he needs fast enough any other way. Jack is the quintessential "good guy cowboy" who breaks laws and rules but always does it in the interest of ultimate good, or at least the lesser of two or more evils, necessary to attain eventual admirable goals.

And Jack Bauer isn't the only one by a very long shot. I heard some chap commenting a few days ago on teevee that the "heroes" in our dramas -- and particularly the crime dramas -- are now almost always individuals who break laws and rules on a regular basis. It would seem they simply cannot do their jobs worth a damn if they do NOT engage in reckless, immoral, and inhumane practices. And society accepts -- indeed it seems to admire and enjoy -- the characters who do this.

The concept of torture has become so prevalent in our "entertainment" and therefore in our culture in America that we could hardly be expected by politicians to be horrified that our own government wants to institutionalize torture "in a good cause." I think they never worried that we the people would want to draw the line at torture or murder.

On television, in one evening (last night), I saw very graphic images of torture in three different dramatic entertainment programs and heard the word torture itself at least ten times in these same shows. In the constant effort to attract the most viewers to their programming, the purveyors of modern American dramatic television, both episodic and of the movie or miniseries genres especially, have continually upped the ante with more and more graphic and violent scenes of and references to torture. Often it's torture of innocents by sexual sadists; but just as often it's the heroes who employ torture to solve a terrible crime, such as finding a kidnapped child.

This trend has been increasingly, glaringly obvious during the last ten years, and by now torture is such a commonplace device used in dramas, I think many viewers hardly even remember that it is a far too horrific practice to be tolerated at any level, in any setting, in real life.

We have been systematically desensitized to inhumane behavior by humans who torment, torture, and kill other humans. For many, this was not an easy or rapid development but rather we had to make a conscious effort to learn to endure viewing scenes of torture and hearing the victims' screams from intense pain and prolonged cruelty. We've seen and heard "victims" -- or bad-guy criminals being tortured for information -- begging for their lives in dramatic productions until such alarming and sickening events no longer alarm or sicken many of us.

If this practice of inuring the American population to the tactics and results of torture was not deliberately planned and put into place in our "entertainment" products, it may as well have been. The effect is the same. The process of desensitization works equally well either way.

So now that we've come this far in accepting torture in our midst, can there be any redeeming of those who have made cruelty an accepted tactic?

~~~~~~~~~~~


Because what you said upthread is true, about how our beliefs and values are incorporated into our lives, what does it say about all of us that we got to a point where the imminent passage of a law institutionalizing torture did not evoke outrage among the public on such a scale and at such a volume as to bring the process to a screeching halt?

<sigh>

Sometimes I don't know where to turn in my thought process, trying to figure a rational, doable "way out" of the mess our country and our government is in.... :cry:

[LWolf]

18. You make some powerful connections there.

What does it say for us as a culture when we value being able to occupy our kids' attentions electronically over shielding them from such desensitization? What does it say about us, when kids' sporting events can erupt in violence over winning and losing, and when our professional athletes, who can "defeat" the opposition, are revered and financially elevated whether or not they are literate, responsible, law-abiding, or civil?

What does it say that we value our local stadium, and the "wins" there, more than our local schools?

When our conversations are all about verbal battle, and making sure that we "win?"

There aren't too many video games out there based on things like empathy, community, cooperation, sharing, and peace, are there? And, if there are such games, I'll bet they're not best sellers.

[vickitulsa]

26. Right. The "win at all costs" drive you talk about

is certainly a prevalent thing across all areas of our culture. It reminds me of the old Vince Lombardi quote about "winning isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing," if I remember it right.

Hey, I love sports, but that's just insane. And you're right about the emphasis on sports getting way out of balance these days, too. When a star player's "talent" is way more important to most fans and even the owners and coaches than the "minor detraction" of his criminal record or arrogant, snide attitude, well, what does that say about our values?

Schools are cutting out art, music, and drama classes and pouring more money into their sports teams and facilities. Cutthroat competition to get the best highschool players for college teams is tougher than it's ever been.

From what I understand, even the school shooting horrors for the most part have been driven by the bullying of geeks or outsiders by jocks, since the jocks are the heroes of the school and can get away with almost anything. "WIN," is what we say to them, "and you can strut and mouth off and do about anything you want."

Civility and the quiet, modest, wellspoken athletic star are still recognized on occasion, but if they don't win the day on the scoreboard, they won't draw much attention for long.

You're so right in your main point. "Beating" the other guy is the goal, above all else. Even the competition among teevee crime dramas to present the most horrific torture scenes or "heroes" that break the rules more outrageously than the other guys' heroes do -- that's driven by the desire to WIN in the RATINGS GAME.

It's more than sad, it's ... sickening. I really don't like what it says about American culture. :(

[LWolf]

37. I don't like it either.

I have this strange, way-out-in-left-field idea:

If we really want to see change, we change the culture, and the politics and systems will follow. That puts emphasis on building bridges, finding commonalities, valuing all members of a community.

[Annces]

10. I really don't see how people can be around each other and not discuss

these things. I think the idea of respecting another's religion or politics is fine, but in the nitty gritty of day to day life, those things come up because we interact in superficial and deep ways. I tend to think that the way forward is for people who have a more generalized view that appreciates diversity to be the growing group. Anytime peoples say, we have our way, and you have yours, that works only at a surface level. Inevitably the group that is stronger, in whatever way that can be achieved, will try to silence or push aside the other group.

So many times I have been around people who I knew had different values than me, and I have tried to respect their values, and that usually works until I expect the same in return and don't get it. Then what?

Right now, one of our news anchors in Madison is moving because he is gay, and there is upcoming legislation on the ballot that would ban same sex marriage. The community is not rallying around him. His work place is not rallying behind him. He is on his own. Why in the world should he stick around and try to respect the other people's viewpoint, when his own life and happiness are being put on the chopping block?

[earth mom]

12. America isn't the melting pot it is supposed to be.

When I was growing up, I was taught that that you don't discuss religion or politics with acquaintances. With people you knew, you were to tread lightly.

But over the years, this rule has become bent, then broken by our society to the point that this country is now so polarized that we can hardly be called a "civilization" any more.

But let's place the blame for this squarely where it firmly belongs; with the fundies and the rethugs. Both of these groups are one and the same. They have incessantly hammered all of us over the head with their beliefs; spewing how much better they and what they believe are than rest of us at every turn. Frankly, I am SO sick of it. Really sick of it! Hell yes, they are bullies and yet they are the first to act insulted when we fight back. They turn it around and call it hate speech when they are actually the haters, not us.

The bottom line is that most of us just want to be left alone and be able to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" if we damn well feel like it!

I'm done playing nice and polite! Fuck them!

:rant:

[LWolf]

21. I don't know if you've nailed the actual source.

I'll bet if you look back, you can find a line of hate, intolerance, and impulses to empire as far back as our recorded history goes. Each group plays those impulses out differently. Some evolve beyond them faster than others. Democrats are part of that mix; have they evolved beyond empire? Beyond just wanting to own the power? In reality, the rise of fundamentalist religion in the U.S. is based on fear and ignorance. People conditioned by fear and kept from the inquiry that comes naturally to them react exactly as they've been programmed. They don't see what those outside of that conditioning see. It's probably because I'm a teacher, but I've always felt that we'll open more eyes interacting with people positively than fighting with them.

[G_j]

15. good thoughts

thanks!

[StellaBlue]

16. No topic should be off-limit for public discussion

or satire or ridicule or criticism or praise.

That's how we end up with all these insane, unchallenged wingnuts!

www.richarddawkins.net

[LWolf]

25. So,

are you saying that courtesy is dead, and should remain so? That the only way to challenge discourtesy is to join it?

[StellaBlue]

34. No, but

we don't put up with people saying ridiculous things about other topics without challenging them, so why put up with idiotic religious and political statements.

Such as

"Bill Clinton was OUT OF CONTROL during that Fox interview"

or

"We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here"

or

"Jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead"

or

"I believe in the Tooth Fairy"



Sorry. I don't respect ideas that have no evidence to back them up. I will not nod and smile in the face of idiocy just to satify others' fairy tales. Disagreeing with someone and asking them to justify their ridiculous statements is NOT the same thing as being impolite. I would never tell someone, "You're an idiot" (though I might be thinking it), nor would I harass them or throw things at them or whatnot. But I maintain that this taboo against criticism regarding faulty logic in religion and politics is a big part of why our nation is currently being run according to the agenda of a bunch of power-mad theocrats. And, in this regard, religious "moderates" are enabling the theocrats by following their fault logic, only not taking it so far. "Faith" = making a virtue of believing something for which there is no evidence.

THINK.

www.richarddawkins.net

[LWolf]

36. I think there are 3 different topics here.

One is a first amendment thing. Do people have the right to engage in rude, bully-like speech? Yes.

Should they? That's a cultural issue of manners. In my view, good manners are to be valued, and do not include verbal bullying.

Respecting what you disagree with? I don't have to respect a pov to treat the person who holds it with respect. It's a whole different matter.

I don't have to respect a person's choices in life to respect their right to make those choices.

As far as disagreement goes, I think this: it's fine to disagree with people here at DU; it's a political discussion board. A place to air various perspectives. In real life, if I don't want your opinion, I probably won't tell you mine. Telling someone all about what I think without their asking is an open invitation to hear theirs as well. Including disagreement. I think we can choose to express disagreement in a civil way, without verbal bullying, and without incivility.

I choose civility. I think those that cling to their right to be incivil increase polarity, therefore making the overall situation worse. Just my perspective.

[StellaBlue]

38. I totally agree.

I do not try to evangelize about any of my beliefs in the real world unless someones asks me out of earnest interest or opens the topic up for debate as you've outlined. If someone says something I think is nuts, I will call them on it. They are free to do the same. If they present convincing evidence, I will change my view.

This does not equate to bullying or abuse. This is the problem * has, which Olbermann so eloquently outlined for us last night. Criticism does not equal terrorism. Likewise, offense and harm are not the same thing.

I respect every human being as a human being, free to hold and express their own views - period. But I have to the right to speak my mind, as well. I would never engage in violence against anyone, even *.

[historian]

19. well said

but if you think the country is going downhill because people are misinformed, apathetic or too lazy to think for themselves i consider it my duty to enlighten them. Well perhaps duty is too strong a word but unless something is done to make others see things from a different perspective, things will get worse.

[LWolf]

23. This brings up an interesting point.

"Seeing from a different perspective." That's a lens that can be applied to all of us. This is reality, from my perspective:

If you want to enlighten me, you'll do it by getting to know me. By understanding the reasons why I see the world the way I do. By allowing me to get to know you, and to appreciate that you have value to the world, and that what you have to say is worth spending time pondering. Maybe I won't change my mind. Maybe I won't say, "Thanks for enlightening me." But if you made an impression, it will stay with me, and be there as I continue to evolve. Eventually I may make an "aha" that connects what you were trying to show me with a piece from someone, or somewhere else. That's really the way my pov evolves. If you yell, demand, push, deride, snicker, call names, cheat, threaten, and otherwise bully, you've just lost. Whatever it is you wanted me to look at will become the garbage heap of my past, and you with it.

I think you turn on potential by leaving doors open, and you shut down potential by slamming them shut. Incivility slams doors shut. Which will be the Rs downfall; they've slammed so many doors that will never open for them no matter how reformed they try to become. Ds can go that route, or they can see the long-term damage and take a different path. :shrug:

[Pacifist Patriot]

20. I'd like to see us get to a point where we can all be our true selves...

and still respect others. I don't want anyone watering down their spiritual path with me in a back breaking attempt not to offend, but I also don't want to encounter a conversion attempt.

[LWolf]

24. That's the thing, isnt' it?

The conversion piece. We don't have the same antipathy for faiths that don't do conversion; we're able to get along just fine. It's when the faith we're supposed to be respecting demands that converting us is a necessary part of that faith. How do you shut that down without regulating the practice of a faith? We sure don't want to get involved with that.

Faith as a part of casual conversation, such as "I talked to ______ at church this Sunday," etc., is not talking about religion. It's the uninvited discussion and evaluation of dogma that steps over the line. What should be simple common courtesy is now an "issue."

[sweetheart]

22. people are religious about their clothes

and how they dress. Whatever it is they like, is layered on
top of a series of rationalizations and self-identity complexes,
explanations for why they can't just drop it and have free will.

[LWolf]

27. True,

and as long as they cause no harm, I don't really care what their religion involves. I don't need to offer my opinion, and I don't need to hear all about it, either. We need to move past that to keep the world moving forward constructively.

[riderinthestorm]

28. I grew up in Midwest fundyville, and religious bullying starts by 5yrs old

I can vividly remember being asked what church I went to since the day I first started interacting with my peers on an extended basis (ie: school). In my neck of the woods, what church you went to, what youth group you were or were not a part of, what missions you went on as a kid, how much your parents tithed - these were real questions that utterly divided. It was considered BAD mannners to NOT answer in my community. Still is actually. I get tense just thinking about how hard it was to answer that my family didn't (doesn't) go to church. I ended up going to church with another fundy family for years in order to somehow feel as though I "belonged". Never worked though, no matter that I knew the bible better than any of them, my parents didn't attend. Alas. No cheerleading squad, no popular clubs, no sports teams were going to even consider adding anyone who wasn't "in".

Social groups form and people are excluded on religious and political basis.

Growing up, to admit you were a Dem in this neck of the woods was to admit you were a social pariah. It was fierce and it started in childhood - the questioning, the prying, the social outcast. I remember the Jewish family down the street were never even invited to the block parties - people just "forgot" to invite the Silversteins..... They eventually moved after a couple of years in my community.

I blame it all utterly on rightwing religious nutjobs. That's who started crossing the line from day one. I'm in my forties as an FYI so this isn't ancient history.

[LWolf]

33. No. I'm in my 40s, too.

I was born in the midwest, lived there for my first 7 years, and have lived in Republican districts most of my life. I remember some of the social pressures to attend church; they are still there. I also have been in places where people just assumed that "we're all republicans," and proceeded to spout the current "R" talking points. Yes, I calmly refuted them. With a smile on my face. And managed to deal with the ensuing ridicule with grace and dignity.

I think those situations occur when a group becomes a majority, and begins to assume that "we" are THE public mindset. They then move their inner group conversations out into the public sector. I either don't respond or take part at all, or I calmly point out that not everyone shares their pov, and that I'll let them know when I need their input on the topic.

[NMMNG]

30. I've typically followed the "don't discuss religion/politics" view

Except when in religious or political environments. The problem comes when encountering people who insist on bringing either topic (or both) into nearly every conversation and/or environment.

If they're strangers I'll normally just walk away, if possible, or tell them I prefer not to discuss such matters. With others I just refuse to discuss the topics as I've found it leads to nothing but chaos.

[LWolf]

32. That's similar to what I do.

I can't always walk away; I work in a public service profession. So I simply redirect the conversation back to whatever the topic that they came to see me is.

Sometimes that topic IS religion; the religious rights of my students. Making sure that a class is inclusive for students of all faiths is essential. Maintaining a faith-neutral environment can be a tightrope walk at times.

[Festivito]

35. Nice for your mother's time, but, now the opposite is occasionally true.

Earlier in our nation's history we fought nature for resources, and there were so many resources available for our European knowledge base to conquer that we could afford such gentility like ignoring the connections between church and state. Now we have conquered our land and pulled its easy resources. Now we fight for control over what is left.

This fight has abused religion and has unduly connected it to the fight of control through influence of voters. Religion was once a bastion of truth and some still hold that religion is above question. Thus, it is not questioned when its hierarchy takes expensive trips, enjoys the company of politicians, takes invites to lavish parties, and pushes interpretations that rile the learned, even in their own universities. The fight inside these churches is now our fight. And it is a fight for love of country as well as a fight for our love of God.

Love is the key I see. That we do discuss these with civility. That we let those whose squelched voices feeling pent, vent, that is that we listen when needed and respond when needed, and then demand the same. Freedom of speech means we should offer freedom in both directions, not unjustly the one direction we seem, to often, to allow.

I intend to remain civil with civil persons and even uncivil persons. But, when love of country demands, I will show that love as above being only civil. I'd hope your mother would approve.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

39. it's too late to recommend your post

But I would.