Cooling the Political Fires

[Tgace]

Found this article in my local paper. For the non-religious out there remove the word God and read it again.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20041030/1026757.asp

Q: I've been revolted by the level of animosity and anger during this presidential campaign. I'm delighted the election is almost here, but I don't know how to heal the rift at our dinner table between family members voting for President Bush and those voting for Sen. John Kerry. This election has not just torn apart the country; it's torn apart my family. What should I do?


- R., New York City

A: We agree that this has been a particularly divisive election and that the winner will have a lot of healing to do. We offer these suggestions to voters on both sides of the political fence, whether their candidate wins or loses:

To supporters of Kerry we say:

It's time to pray for President Bush and for the anger in your souls that kept you from appreciating his virtues and cutting him some slack for his limitations. If you've judged him harshly because he's a believing Christian, we hope you can find a more generous part of your soul with which to judge people of faith who lead this country.

Being a person of faith ought not be limited to a private set of convictions, but must also be a mandate for social justice and the protection of all life. Bush's faith is a wellspring of his values. This is not shameful but a proud and glorious thing. Abraham Lincoln, in issuing the proclamation for Thanksgiving, reminded Americans that we have not prospered because we have better machinery. We've prospered because we have a better idea, and that idea is that God is the source of our freedom, not the state.

It's time to let go of the foolish, despicable insults against this good man and join him in making our country one nation under God once again.

To Bush supporters we say:

It's time to pray for Sen. Kerry and for the anger in your souls that kept you from appreciating his virtues and cutting him some slack for his limitations. If you've judged him harshly because he passionately opposed the Vietnam War, we hope you can find a more generous part of your soul with which to judge the many people who shared his despair but have since found a way to view the Vietnam era in a way that its furies and acrimonies might abate.

We urge you to accept and appreciate those who've grown to regret many of the things they said and did in their youth. How many of us could survive a relentless public airing of everything we've ever said or done?

Sen. Kerry is obviously a man of great courage, and we pray that all who are blinded by partisan hatred of him can come to understand that one of the most noble manifestations of courage is the ability to change one's views and come to new and hopefully truer understandings of the nature of our world and its dangers. It's time to let go of the foolish, despicable insults against this good man and join him in making our country one nation under God once again.

 

[michaeledward]

What an odd response from a 'News' organization. It seems the paper considers the strife at the dinner table is based on religion, rather than policy.

To think that 'religion' is the only source (or even a primary source, or partial source) of the 'animosity and anger' demonstrates that the Buffalo News doesn't understand what news is.

News is the 8 United States Marines who died in Fallujah today.
News is the extended deployment of 6,500 soldiers in Iraq for an additional two months.
News is the United States government authorizing, leagalizing and approving torture .

Perhaps, reducing 'animosity and anger' to a simple instruction, 'pray' is the exact opposite of the best way to heal the rifts that exist.

 

[Tgace]

Perhaps if you looked at the source you would see that its from a syndicated column in the Life & Arts section, along with Dear Abby and Miss Manners, not a paper editorial...

The misunderstanding of the writers intent isnt a surprise however........

 

[Flatlander]

I think that it's refreshing to see at least publication with a somewhat conciliatory tone in these, the last few days of a most heated and divisive campaign.

Of course, the message is spun in a religious fashion, but the message is proper. Unfortunately for Americans, I foresee a difficult road ahead for all who have invested their time to become educated in the issues, considered the options, and chosen to vote. Every citizen will have to live the with the results of this vote, and I seriously hope for all of you that it's not close enough to question. A clear decision will better facilitate the bridging of the partisan distaste that has reared its ugly head.

Time will tell.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I think the animosity is something that has grown in the last 4 years. Quite honestly, I think a large part of the country has felt disenfranchised since the last election, when the Supreme Court had to decide who was President.

This country is becoming more divided between the haves and have-nots, as well as Fundamentalist Christians and everyone else.

I like the tone of the piece, but it did not "hit" me in my spiritual/religious zone. But I don't dislike Bush's presidency because he has religious faith. I dislike it, in part, because I think things he has done *contradict* the faith he claims to espouse.

We've prospered because we have a better idea, and that idea is that God is the source of our freedom, not the state.

Nooooo.... Our country's structure and the Constitution is the source of our freedom.

As an aside: I hope we can continue to hold on to the separation of church and state in this country.

 

[shesulsa]

Nooooo.... Our country's structure and the Constitution is the source of our freedom.

As an aside: I hope we can continue to hold on to the separation of church and state in this country.

Feisty, you so totally rock. I agree with everything you said and the above quote particularly strikes chord with me.

The use of religion by the state is a well-known tactic used for brainwashing purposes.

I pray (wink) we can keep our government separate from our church.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

To think that 'religion' is the only source (or even a primary source, or partial source) of the 'animosity and anger' demonstrates that the Buffalo News doesn't understand what news is.

Michael,
The 'Snooze' as many of us Buffalonians call it has about as much to do with real news, as well, cow dung has to fine dining. But, what do you expect in a 1 newspaper monopoly town anyway?

It's biased, writen at a 4th grade reading level, regularly ignores real news to push it's own agenda, and to be blunt, sucks.

I regularly read a local free paper called Artvoice http://artvoice.com which reports on things the Snooze doesn't. I asked the Snooze why they didn't report on the arrests of the Libertarian and Green presidential candidates. The response was 'That wasn't important'. The only thing I ever find in there worth reading are the comics, and I can get those for free online.

 

[Flatlander]

From a Feature Report by The National (CBC):

Now Republicans and Democrats inhabit different worlds. And not just figuratively, but literally. For you find the same wary distance spreading across American communities – a new segregation, this time political, forms an expanding gulf between red Republican areas and blue Democratic ones. It's a profound shift. Twenty-five years ago, Americans largely lived in mixed Republican/Democrat neighbourhoods.

Now political writers like Bill Bishop in Austin find fully half live in either overwhelmingly Democratic areas or in solid red Republican communities that surround them. "State legislatures have gotten much more adept at gerrymandering congressional district, so they're overwhelmingly one party or another," Bishop says.

"But at the same time, people are doing that themselves. So we're gerrymandering ourselves into like-minded communities, and so the effect is each party, as their base becomes more firm and more polarized, to move to either the left or to the right, and there's less reason for anyone in Congress to compromise over anything. And that's, in fact, what's happening."

I find this to be absolutely fascinating. It would appear that people are trending toward moving into communities where the majority support the same type of political viewpoints and values. Over the course of time, should the trend continue, I can definitely foresee the possiblity for extreme polarization, as well as a fundamental shift away from the center as voters spend more and more time interacting only with others of like views, reinforcing their beliefs and perhaps pushing eachother further out into the fringes of political ideal.

More and more isolated from neighbours with opposing views, people tend to grow more rigid in their politics.

"There's a social phenomenon called group polarization," Bishop says. "What happens is when a group of people who think the same thing get together, by the end of their conversation, they tend to think a more extreme version of what they thought to begin with.

"If you think about that happening at a molecular level around the United States over and over and over again in community after community and neighbourhood after neighbourhood, then you have a picture of a nation that is polarizing internally at kind of the molecular level of society.

"I think it really is a problem in that I don't see people with the willingness, or even now the ability, to see the other side, and the urge of people to demonize opponents without even ever talking to them is just rampant."

 

[Tgace]

NPR had a story on this morning about American politics...this phenomona is far from new. The story they had was about Jefferson's election. Then there was the little trouble in the 1860,s......

On religon and politics...It seems like whenever sexuality is let out of the closet, religon is put back in. Want to feel looked down upon or laughed at lately, make a religious statement in a public place......

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I really don't think that's true... both of the political candidates have talked about their faith and running for office.

Maybe it's just where we live that's different.

 

[Brother John]

On religon and politics...It seems like whenever sexuality is let out of the closet, religon is put back in. Want to feel looked down upon or laughed at lately, make a religious statement in a public place......

I believe that you hit the nail on the head there Tgace! :asian:
Your Brother
John

 

[michaeledward]

On religon and politics...It seems like whenever sexuality is let out of the closet, religon is put back in. Want to feel looked down upon or laughed at lately, make a religious statement in a public place......

Of course, this could be because some of us took the teachings of Joshua ben Joseph (sometimes referred to a Jesus) to heart.

Matthew 6:1-6

1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. 2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. 5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

 

[Brother John]

That's very true Michael. Thanks for pointing that out.
But I don't think that this precludes doing your 'deeds of righteousness' in the view of others. It admonishes us to not do them with the intent of gaining praise for ourselves.
As Jesus also admonishes us in the chapter previous to the one you posted:

Matthew 5:16
In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

So it's not the act of doing or claiming your faith publicly (hiding it under a bushel, as Christ put it) that's wrong but your motivation for doing so. It shouldn't be for the praise of the person but for God's Glory.

Your Brother
John

 

[michaeledward]

This, of course, is one of the differences between Catholisism and Protestantism. Catholics tend to be quiet about their faith because of Matthew 6. Protestants tend to be more open with their faith because of Matthew 5.

I remind you that I am an athiest. I don't think I should be subjected to these arguments in the course of a political discussion. Equally, I think those of the Hindu faith living in the United States should not be subjected to which chapter of the New Testament is proper for the leading the country. Nor the Jews, nor the Moslems, nor the Bhuddists.

The English and the French haven't been able to resolve this argument in 500 years, which may have been one of the reasons the founders chose to leave religion out of politics.

In trying to keep this thread on topic ... of 'Cooling the Politcial Fires'

How should I not take offense when the Vice President refers to my preferred candidate as a 'pig'... "The vice president then delivered what he tells crowds is his favorite line: “As we like to say in Wyoming, you can put all the lipstick you want on a pig, but at the end of the day, it’ll still be a pig!” ...

So, anyhow ... to get past these junior high level insults ... we need to look for commonalities among our population.

• Who in the room thinks it is acceptable for woman to earn $.74 cents for every $1.00 a man earns when performing the same job?
• Who in the room thinks it is acceptable to leave to their children an environment that is more polluted than it is today?
• Who in the room thinks non-violent offenders should be locked away for years under mandatory sentencing laws?
• Who in the room thinks that segregated colleges are a better way to improve society.

I think that most Americans agree that these are foolish goals for our society. Perhaps we can cool the political fires by recognizing the goals of Equal Rights for Women, Reasonable Environmental Policies, Responsible Treatment Programs for drug users, and Civil Rights for all.

But, maybe that's just me.

 

[shesulsa]

So, anyhow ... to get past these junior high level insults ... we need to look for commonalities among our population.

• Who in the room thinks it is acceptable for woman to earn $.74 cents for every $1.00 a man earns when performing the same job?
• Who in the room thinks it is acceptable to leave to their children an environment that is more polluted than it is today?
• Who in the room thinks non-violent offenders should be locked away for years under mandatory sentencing laws?
• Who in the room thinks that segregated colleges are a better way to improve society.

I think that most Americans agree that these are foolish goals for our society. Perhaps we can cool the political fires by recognizing the goals of Equal Rights for Women, Reasonable Environmental Policies, Responsible Treatment Programs for drug users, and Civil Rights for all.

But, maybe that's just me.

Nope, not just you. :wavey:

 

[Brother John]

I remind you that I am an athiest. I don't think I should be subjected to these arguments in the course of a political discussion. Equally, I think those of the Hindu faith living in the United States should not be subjected to which chapter of the New Testament is proper for the leading the country. Nor the Jews, nor the Moslems, nor the Bhuddists.

who subjected you to anything? I was making a point. If you disagree, move on or don't read it. See, I can't talk about matters of faith because it goes against your atheism? How is that tolerant or open minded? I don't impose my religious faith on you, don't impose your lack of any on me. Why should I be constrained by your belief system?

And nobody said word ONE about any verses from any book being used to lead a country. If you look again you may find that the point was personal conduct and personal belief systems. It didn't have to do with leading a country. It had to do with conducting ones own life. A person 'of faith' leads their life and makes their decisions based on their perception of their belief system.

Your Brother
John

 

[loki09789]

NPR had a story on this morning about American politics...this phenomona is far from new. The story they had was about Jefferson's election. Then there was the little trouble in the 1860,s......

On religon and politics...It seems like whenever sexuality is let out of the closet, religon is put back in. Want to feel looked down upon or laughed at lately, make a religious statement in a public place......

I heard that one on the drive home. THey even said that one of Lincoln's rivals said that Lincoln's policies would legalize Rape/sodomy and adultery.... so I guess this sheeiit isn't 'new' by any means.

 

[michaeledward]

who subjected you to anything? I was making a point. If you disagree, move on or don't read it. See, I can't talk about matters of faith because it goes against your atheism? How is that tolerant or open minded? I don't impose my religious faith on you, don't impose your lack of any on me. Why should I be constrained by your belief system?

And nobody said word ONE about any verses from any book being used to lead a country. If you look again you may find that the point was personal conduct and personal belief systems. It didn't have to do with leading a country. It had to do with conducting ones own life. A person 'of faith' leads their life and makes their decisions based on their perception of their belief system.

Your Brother
John

How odd. You see, I thought I was making a point as well. And when I discussed the issue, I used the language of a believer, I referenced the text of a believer. And it seems, because of this, I am being scolded. Perhaps you prefer Matthew 5 to Matthew 6. But that presents a problem doesn't it? That the Bible is divinely inspired means that it is all so inspired. I know, I know, even the devil can quote scripture to serve his ends.

The government of this country was created by men, to serve men. It should be possible to discuss the actions of the government without invoking Christian beliefs. You will recall that this thread started because someone trying to 'Cool the Political Fires' was counciled to 'Pray'. I have no objection to your faith. Nor do I have any difficulty with you discussing your faith. But a discussion of faith is not a discussion of politics. Use your faith to guide your politics, but, when we are discussing Politics, it is safest to use political arguments.

You know, even people 'not of faith' lead their lives and make their decisions based on their perceptions of their belief system.

Mike

 

[Tgace]

Quote the bible in response to a thread then get angry when somebody else responds with a religious statement...seems unfair to me. Back in the closet with your bad religious self!

 

[michaeledward]

Quote the bible in response to a thread then get angry when somebody else responds with a religious statement...seems unfair to me. Back in the closet with your bad religious self!

Except, the quote was not mentioned to create a point of discussion, but to refute your argument. Pardon me for understanding your point of view.