Cooling the Political Fires

[loki09789]

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.

Then why as a 'non believer' invoking wisdom from religious based text do you say that 'believers' need to stay within political frameworks for discussion.

If the point is to be that a person's values and beliefs will be the foundation for political decisions, mentioning them would come part and parcel. Just as 'non believers' will mention sources for values/morals by which they live.

Contextual use of religious discussion is fine. The problem I see is that the instant you mention religion as a basis for your values, people are going to accuse you of 'preaching' or 'imposing religion' on them if they are hypersensitive about religion and don't want to see it as simply a value structure within the context of a political discussion.

 

[michaeledward]

Then perhaps, someone will address this:

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.

 

[Flatlander]

I find it peculiar that religion need be discussed at all in a thread exploring "cooling the political fires". This ought to revolve around bridging the idealogial "gap" between the common citizens of the USA, or at least learning to live side by side, and working toward your common goal.

Maybe the fact that religion is being invoked is demonstrative of the characteristics that are contributing to this disparity.

 

[michaeledward]

Then why as a 'non believer' invoking wisdom from religious based text do you say that 'believers' need to stay within political frameworks for discussion.

Two words : Common Ground

An attempt to use language appropriate for a believer to understand why they should pay tribute to Ceasar that which is Ceasars.

Oh, damn .. there I go again.

Silly me.

If the point is to be that a person's values and beliefs will be the foundation for political decisions, mentioning them would come part and parcel. Just as 'non believers' will mention sources for values/morals by which they live.

Contextual use of religious discussion is fine. The problem I see is that the instant you mention religion as a basis for your values, people are going to accuse you of 'preaching' or 'imposing religion' on them if they are hypersensitive about religion and don't want to see it as simply a value structure within the context of a political discussion.

I thought the 'point' was to 'cool the political fires'.

If the basis of a political dissention is religious, as I said earlier, that way lies Iran. If the basis of political dissent is not religious, they why are we enjoined to 'pray'.

Oddly, the questioner, and the question, does not mention the political dissent is religous in nature, except for asking the question to 'The God Squad'.

 

[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.

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

Mike

Michael-

I'm sorry man. Really. I have not the clout, authority nor desire to "scold" you. Tone is so difficult to carry over the internet. I think this discussion would be 110% better if we were at a pub together puttin down a few as we discussed...and believe it or not, I'd probably listen 10X more than talk, and when I did, it'd be mostly questions! (Imagine that, me...not talking) Scolding wasn't my intent Michael, and I'm very sorry that I couldn't keep myself from coming acros that way.

As to the scriptures. I personally don't think that the two scriptures are opposed, but if you view them in a juxtaposed way...I think they cooberate to show that a christian shouldn't hide their good deeds nor their faith, but when doing them in view of others, to do them for God's benefit, not our own.
By juxtaposing scripture with scripture we find what I believe is the best way to interpret the Bible... scripture interprets scripture.

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

Very true man, very true.
As one of my favorite Monty Python quotes says, in refering to an agnostic "There's nothing a man can't do if he doesn't really know whether he believes in anything, or not." :idunno:

Your Brother
John

 

[loki09789]

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..

So if I were to use the analogy of 'putting silk on a sow's ear' for the way people are dealing with an issue am I calling that issue a 'sow?' No. I am making an analogy and if that analogy is a comparison between Kerry (depicted as an unfit candidate and lipstick as his way of trying to dress himself up as fit) and this 'pig in lipstick' then it is a comparison not a 'name calling' thing. Come on, Mike, I thought you were a more sophisticated reader than that.

I think it is more significant that Kerry's wife completely forgot that Mrs. Bush worked as a teacher when she made comments about Bush "never worked" and had to eat crow. Or the uproar at the mention of Cheney's gay daughter from the Bush/Cheney campaign (never mind that the mention of it was referencial only and respectful as far as I could tell).

I don't think either candidate at this point are 'playing nice' about each other or the issues. So what.

One of the major points that has been brought up against Bush is his reference to his personal religious/moral values as if he is imposing his 'church' on this 'state'. The idea of separation was designed to keep the USA from going the way of England and France where your religious affilitation could gain you political power DIRECTLY (Church of England, Catholicism in France)... if you weren't 'one of them' then you had a reduced citizen status.

No where does it say that if you are voted into political office, based on those values, that you can't make decisions because of those values. How do you think the early 'founding fathers' came to decisions?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

This is getting a bit tiresome.... as I've mentioned before, I really don't think it is the fact that someone has a religious belief or particular faith that is a problem - BOTH CANDIDATES have spoken openly about their strong religious faiths.

The problems I have are:

1) Changing the Consitution to reflect someone else's religious belief system (i.e. homosexuality is wrong, and homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, although "marriage" per se is within the perview of each church or temple, and not the buisness of the government to dictate) - which is not mine - is not right. The Constitution is a political document, not religious.

2) Having a political leader who makes large decisions that impact this country, our troops, and the rest of the world based SOLELY on faith, with active disregard for actual evidence or input from advisors, is a scary thing. This is not rational, not prudent, not wise.

3) Having the government support churches and faith-based activities - or, even worse, favor some over the other - blurs the line between church and state too much for my tastes.

 

[shesulsa]

So if I were to use the analogy of 'putting silk on a sow's ear' for the way people are dealing with an issue am I calling that issue a 'sow?' No. I am making an analogy and if that analogy is a comparison between Kerry (depicted as an unfit candidate and lipstick as his way of trying to dress himself up as fit) and this 'pig in lipstick' then it is a comparison not a 'name calling' thing. Come on, Mike, I thought you were a more sophisticated reader than that.

...

I think it is more significant that Kerry's wife completely forgot that Mrs. Bush worked as a teacher when she made comments about Bush "never worked" and had to eat crow. Or the uproar at the mention of Cheney's gay daughter from the Bush/Cheney campaign (never mind that the mention of it was referencial only and respectful as far as I could tell).

To respectfully interject here -

I think something few people really talk about is the importance of the semantics the right wing chooses. "Putting lipstick on a pig" is not the wording I expect from a leader - it is the language I expect from a high school student or a farmer. The vernacular the Republican party seems to be espousing is manipulative and designed to power-over opposition in its simple-minded panderings. This is no accident.

So I find this comment by Cheney just as insulting and ignorant as Mrs. Kerry's remark, honestly.

We forget how powerful language is as a tool to the sheeple who follow along the emotionally-charged, insulting, juvenile vernacular of the GOP and why it's important to NOT stoop to that level. This is the opiate of the weak-minded and is often a hallmark of dictatorship. It is very popular because of its emotional nature.

And no matter who uses it, it is inappropriate for our republic, IMHO.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

A whoot-whoot.Thank you, she-sulsa!

 

[michaeledward]

So I find this comment by Cheney just as insulting and ignorant as Mrs. Kerry's remark, honestly.

I am going to dispute this a bit.

Ms. Heinz Kerry made a comment about Ms. Bush.

How well do we think these two women knew each other 27 years ago? For Ms. Bush has not been a teacher or librarian since 1977. One might be tempted to call Ms. Heinz Kerry's statement a 'mistake' or an 'oversight'. You could even call it 'ignorant', if you meant she was ignorant of the facts.

Of course, once the facts were pointed out, Ms. Heinz Kerry offered a apology. I thought the apology was honest and heartfelt, although I see some (in the papers) find the apology condescending. Oh, well.

Should Ms. Heinz Kerry have known better. Probably. But she didn't. Did she handle it correctly? I think so. I am willing to listen to those who disagree.

 

[shesulsa]

Well, yes, Mike, she did apologize ... but I find it curious that her assistant didn't make it plain as to Mrs. Bush's background ... and to be fair, a little hard to believe.

I think what Mrs. Kerry did was a classier way of putting down the opposition. She was half-right, after all - Mrs. Bush had not been employed for quite some time. AND she apologized. I don't hear Cheney apologizing for his comment.

And it's a far cry from "lipstick on a pig" IMHO.

Again, my point was really to illustrate the difference of vernacular.

G

 

[Flatlander]

If you folks are going to continue looking to your leaders to forge the way to "cooling the political fires", you are barking up the wrong trees.

It appears here that either side is of the opinion that conciliation will come from the "other side" moving first.

Wrong, guys.

Everybody meets in the middle. Hands extended across ideological lines, gripping and shaking. This is the way of cooling. And it begins with you - not with a Bush, and not with a Kerry.

Of course, none of this will be even remotely within reach if the election results are close enough to dispute.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

What you say is true, flatlander, but I think people are really taking the lead from the leaders so to speak, even more in recent years. I've found some things "leaders" have done to be pretty despicable or just rude, but then these events are used as justification for other folks to be rude/ fight dirty/ etc.

It's a shame, particularly when so many people are worried about the intergrity of politicians and the White House.

Hmmmm.

 

[shesulsa]

Flatlander, what you say is absolutely true. It will take finding middle ground by both parties - and an end to mudslinging. And it DOES have to come from the people.

I think the best way to do this is to TURN OFF THE TELEVISION!!!!!! TURN OFF THE RADIO!!!!! STOP READING THE NEWSPAPERS!!!!!

WTF - they're all slanted anyway (at least most of them are). I'd like to see equal time for ALL candidates -and when that happens, it might be worth seeing, but I just don't see that happening, ever.

Perhaps we need more publicized accessibility to voting records, bill language, line-item add-ons and middle of the night voting sessions.

Until people are more responsible about educating themselves from records they see personally instead of relying on "Your News Digested" (read excrement) to inform them of the viability of candidates and their records, we will continue to fight over the line in the sand, candidate's backgrounds, personal financial issues, marital problems, extramarital sexual escapades, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. We will continue to fuel the fire, we will continue to name-call, mud-sling, gossip, taunt, rant, rave, insult, degrade each other and abominate the political process.

Peace

SS

 

[Tgace]

Well said.....do you really think thats possible though? Deep down, unfortunately, I think people enjoy having someone to hate. Place all your troubles into the straw man and set him alight.........

 

[shesulsa]

Tgace, no, I don't think this will happen - at least for a while.

You know - folks can say what they want about Ralph Nader, but here is a man who has dedicated his life to consumer rights and awareness - working for the people. Why don't people want to vote for someone who has fought so hard to protect their rights?!? I don't mind saying that I think it's a darn shame that we American'ts can't seem to come out of the closet, get off our arses and vote third party in a serious way.

This two-party thing just ain't werkin' anymore. Until a 3rd party candidate gets elected to the astonishment of the Rs and Ds and the media as well, I think this nation has no hope of change.

Sad words, but ... c'est la vie.

 

[michaeledward]

As a 2000 Nader voter ... my desire at the time was to inspire the Democratic party to take up some more environmental positions.

You will recall that Bush and Gore were running on almost identical platforms. Bush had me (and the rest of the country for that matter) convinced that a 'compassionate conservative' was not going to harsh like Reagan.

Well, with four years of an Administration that does not take any reasonable positions, four years of catering to business interests, four years of unilateralist arrogance, I can not try to move the Democratic Party toward a more left position.

I truly hope that Nader gets ZERO votes tomorrow. Every vote he receives is coming from Kerry.

 

[shesulsa]

Agreed, Mike. I will be voting for Kerry because I just plain old don't want Bush in anymore.

Frankly, if I thought he stood a chance, I might vote for Nader. But I was trying to say that it would take a landslide 3rd party victory for our processes to change and I really don't think that's going to happen for a very, very long time. Hence, I (at least) will be reduced to picking between the lesser of the two evils.

 

[Phoenix44]

I think it's a VERY strange message, with very strange assumptions and strong bias.

Kerry supporters don't judge Bush harshly because "he's a believing Christian." Many Kerry supporters judge him harshly because they believe Bush DOESN'T act in a Christian manner. And Kerry certainly doesn't believe that speaking against the Vietnam War was youthful foolishness.

But I agree that the reconciliation between Americans will be very, very difficult. I, for one, will find it difficult to re-kindle friendships with people who jumped down my throat rather than let me answer the questions that they asked me, or who called my concerns about the country and about my own circumstances "Bull$#&@"

 

[shesulsa]

Kerry supporters don't judge Bush harshly because "he's a believing Christian." Many Kerry supporters judge him harshly because they believe Bush DOESN'T act in a Christian manner. And Kerry certainly doesn't believe that speaking against the Vietnam War was youthful foolishness.

Well put.

But I agree that the reconciliation between Americans will be very, very difficult. I, for one, will find it difficult to re-kindle friendships with people who jumped down my throat rather than let me answer the questions that they asked me, or who called my concerns about the country and about my own circumstances "Bull$#&@"

I scrolled the thread and didn't find this, so ... before I make assumptions (and I think I know the answer to my question) can you explain the general circumstances to this?

Thanks.

G