Faith and politics

[JohnnyLingo]

I have a good friend from high school who leans left on most issues. We use Google Talk to debate this and other questions on and off during the work day, and we respect each other enough that it stays civil and logical.

We've both become frustrated at the fact that you cannot find unbiased arguments for either side. It seems everyone who cares enough to compile statistics or analyze them have their mind made up about what they want to find before they find it.

And suddenly, I realized why politics is such a divisive and emotional topic for so many: it is religion. Can anyone prove whether American universal healthcare would be better than what we have now or not? No. Can anyone prove whether God exists or not? No.

So it comes down to faith. Do you believe our federal government can handle something so large in an efficient way? If you do, then you'll fight to the death to get this ball rolling.

If you don't, however, you'll fight to the death to stop it from getting started.

It's like the Crusades. Both sides are fanatical in their belief that they are right, when neither has a corner on the truth market.

So the rhetoric gets angrier and angrier, and people's feelings get hurt so they dig their heels in deeper and the cycle continues.

This sucks.

Anyone feel the same way?

[Babs]

I will not post. I will not post. I will not post.

[il Padrino Ute]

I will not post. I will not post. I will not post.

I triple dog dare you to post.

[il Padrino Ute]

I'm beyond believing the federal government would make things worse. I know it would make things worse.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I have a good friend from high school who leans left on most issues. We use Google Talk to debate this and other questions on and off during the work day, and we respect each other enough that it stays civil and logical.

We've both become frustrated at the fact that you cannot find unbiased arguments for either side. It seems everyone who cares enough to compile statistics or analyze them have their mind made up about what they want to find before they find it.

And suddenly, I realized why politics is such a divisive and emotional topic for so many: it is religion. Can anyone prove whether American universal healthcare would be better than what we have now or not? No. Can anyone prove whether God exists or not? No.

So it comes down to faith. Do you believe our federal government can handle something so large in an efficient way? If you do, then you'll fight to the death to get this ball rolling.

If you don't, however, you'll fight to the death to stop it from getting started.

It's like the Crusades. Both sides are fanatical in their belief that they are right, when neither has a corner on the truth market.

So the rhetoric gets angrier and angrier, and people's feelings get hurt so they dig their heels in deeper and the cycle continues.

This sucks.

Anyone feel the same way?

I agree with the sentiment. When your convictions tell you that you are right it also makes it difficult to compromise.

[ERCougar]

I will not post. I will not post. I will not post.

Uh...

[JohnnyLingo]

I respect those who responded positively to my post even though we don't have a good relationship.

I sent Babs a message asking what exactly she meant by her post, but she has not responded.

Perhaps it would have been better if she posted nothing at all.

[Sleeping in EQ]

What you're expressing, Lingo reminds me of the differing views of John Dewey and Walter Lippmann back in the 1920s. You might enjoy reading Dewey's The Public and Its Problems and Lippmann's Public Opinion.

The issues they discuss are as relevant as ever.

[TripletDaddy]

Perhaps it would have been better if she posted nothing at all.

Finally...someone has the guts to say this!

[JohnnyLingo]

What you're expressing, Lingo reminds me of the differing views of John Dewey and Walter Lippmann back in the 1920s. You might enjoy reading Dewey's The Public and Its Problems and Lippmann's Public Opinion.

The issues they discuss are as relevant as ever.

Thanks, SIEQ. Sounds like a read I'd enjoy and learn from.

I'll check it out.

[Babs]

I respect those who responded positively to my post even though we don't have a good relationship.

I sent Babs a message asking what exactly she meant by her post, but she has not responded.

Forgive me if I find it difficult to take seriously a post that equates the American political dialogue with a series of military conquests that resulted in several million lost lives; or that suggests that Americans will "fight to the death" for their favorite political issue, when half of us don't even turn out to vote and a third of us can't even name the vice president. You suggest that we're fanatical or zealous, when pragmatically speaking every indication is that we're as apathetic as we've ever been.

What you're trying to suggest is that American politics has become nothing more than two ideologies, both rooted in a priori assumption and each the subject of blind adherence. This is, of course, true, and nothing novel. However, your post got lost in your use of the word faith, and when you tried to invoke the crusades.

Blind faith tends to result in extreme action, like we see with the crusades. But when it comes to partisan politics, I believe you're mistaking adherence for faith. You forget that people may religiously (if you will) subscribe to a doctrine without having much faith in that doctrine or its primary proponents. See, the crusades were a result of blind faith in a religious ideology and its leaders. Partisan politics, on the other hand, inspires adherence, but no faith whatsoever. So the pervasive sentiment toward American politics is not fanaticism at all, but rather apathy.

[JohnnyLingo]

Forgive me if I find it difficult to take seriously a post that equates the American political dialogue with a series of military conquests that resulted in several million lost lives; or that suggests that Americans will "fight to the death" for their favorite political issue...

1. Thanks for explaining. I really do appreciate it.

2. I only compared our political environment to the Crusades in the very, very limited way of "[b]oth sides are fanatical in their belief that they are right, when neither has a corner on the truth market."

I don't know why you felt the need to extrapolate the reference beyond what I wrote, but maybe it was because you constantly feel the need to try and make me look silly.

If so, let it go, Babs.

[wuapinmon]

1. Thanks for explaining. I really do appreciate it.

2. I only compared our political environment to the Crusades in the very, very limited way of "[b]oth sides are fanatical in their belief that they are right, when neither has a corner on the truth market."

I don't know why you felt the need to extrapolate the reference beyond what I wrote, but maybe it was because you constantly feel the need to try and make me look silly.

If so, let it go, Babs.

Sheesh. You are so close to being a cool guy, and then you go and fark it up with your epilogues.

[JohnnyLingo]

Sheesh.

Hey wuap, you don't like me. I get it. Go away.

[Babs]

maybe it was because you constantly feel the need to try and make me look silly.

Honestly, you don't need any help.