Something to think about

[charby]

I think this is a really well written opinion piece on personal polarization of politics that everyone should read.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2014/08/ask_andrew_wk_right_wing_dad.php

Yes, the world is always and always has been on the brink of "destruction", it is nothing new. Every generation has their struggles that they see as the game ender from their point of view.

Another one that my moderate liberal friend emailed me a few months ago, she calls me an exception because I have many friends from all political angles.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

I agree with the article because seems people like to pal around with people who think the same as they do, many people are scared to break out their comfort zone and hang out with people who think/act differently then they do.

[makattak]

I think this is a really well written opinion piece on personal polarization of politics that everyone should read.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2014/08/ask_andrew_wk_right_wing_dad.php

Yes, the world is always and always has been on the brink of "destruction", it is nothing new. Every generation has their struggles that they see as the game ender from their point of view.

Another one that my moderate liberal friend emailed me a few months ago, she calls me an exception because I have many friends from all political angles.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

I agree with the article because seems people like to pal around with people who think the same as they do, many people are scared to break out their comfort zone and hang out with people who think/act differently then they do.

A response:

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2010/03/31/conflict_or_cooperation/page/full

We have reached the current level of vitriol because the government is dictating more and more of what can be done. Further, the federal government making these rules means that there is no opportunity for one community to make a different decision than another.

Next, people have ALWAYS sought out and pal'ed (palled? paled?) around with others who are like them. It's a function of the scope of federal intrusion that polite disagreements are no longer possible.

Lastly, this is also a result of the proclaimed doctrine of the left. They wanted to "make the political, personal". To have lefties now crying about it because the other side is responding (minimally) in kind is a great hypocrisy. You want the war to stop? LAY DOWN YOUR ARMS and then we'll talk. Otherwise, I don't have much sympathy for the side who created the current political acrimony (care to remember Judge Bork?) crying now that they are suffering for it (as well).

[brimic]

Lastly, this is also a result of the proclaimed doctrine of the left. They wanted to "make the political, personal".

Yep.
It was only a few years ago when we had all of the lefty clowns come out of the closet and openly threaten politicians and smear feces all over the capitol building in my state.
We had a pretty awful left wing governor before our current governor, right wingers would grumble, but they didn't act out like the left.

[charby]

Lastly, this is also a result of the proclaimed doctrine of the left. They wanted to "make the political, personal".

The Right is very much guilty of that also.

[roo_ster]

The Right is very much guilty of that also.

Er, wrong.

"The personal is political" is a doctrine of the left not the right and indicates a totalizing view of politics.  Conservatism is only a partial philosophy of life, with lots of room for the apolitical/nonpolitical.  For instance, the culture war was declared by the left and has been waged in what was previously non-political territory.

"The personal is political" has a long history in leftist politics, dating back to before the turn of the 20th century in marxist theory.  For instance, “Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" was a favorite of Mussolini.  The marxist doctrine behind identity politics invokes the idea that nothing is outside the realm of politics.  Thus feminism, race-based grievance politics, multiculturalism, etc.

"Polarization" is only now being denounced because those on the right have made some small strides at organizing and communicating and undermining the institutional edifices of the left. 

[charby]

Er, wrong.

"The personal is political" is a doctrine of the left not the right and indicates a totalizing view of politics.  Conservatism is only a partial philosophy of life, with lots of room for the apolitical/nonpolitical.  For instance, the culture war was declared by the left and has been waged in what was previously non-political territory.

"The personal is political" has a long history in leftist politics, dating back to before the turn of the 20th century in marxist theory.  For instance, “Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" was a favorite of Mussolini.  The marxist doctrine behind identity politics invokes the idea that nothing is outside the realm of politics.  Thus feminism, race-based grievance politics, multiculturalism, etc.

"Polarization" is only now being denounced because those on the right have made some small strides at organizing and communicating and undermining the institutional edifices of the left. 

When people use religion as an excuse to skirt governmental actions, it is personal. Religion is a personal choice, not something you are born with.

[Balog]

When people use religion as an excuse to skirt governmental actions, it is personal. Religion is a personal choice, not something you are born with.

 

Freedom of religion is so turrible, we need to get that outdated hate language out of the Bill of Rights and change it to a right to force other people to pay for your abortion.

[SADShooter]

When people use religion as an excuse to skirt governmental actions, it is personal. Religion is a personal choice, not something you are born with.

Isn't this statement really true only for the portion of the world's population, probably a distinct minority, living in places where they will not be killed or ostracized for making a choice disagreeable to those in the culture around them?

[KD5NRH]

We have reached the current level of vitriol because the government is dictating more and more of what can be done. Further, the federal government making these rules means that there is no opportunity for one community to make a different decision than another.

For standardization of some things, (like traffic light colors and legal definitions of words) that is (or should be - FDA labeling requirements are an excellent example of where word definitions can get stupid) good.  For 95% of the stuff they do, though, it is evil.  The whole point of having 50 states and thousands of cities and counties, each with their own governing body and local regulations, is that there should be significant variation, allowing individuals to find the place most compatible with their personal beliefs, within a framework of Federal regulations covering only the things that must be standardized to avoid significant problems like a traveler encountering a city where green lights mean stop or wearing a yarmulke is grounds for a stop and frisk.

[KD5NRH]

Isn't this statement really true only for the portion of the world's population, probably a distinct minority, living in places where they will not be killed or ostracized for making a choice disagreeable to those in the culture around them?

Considering China and India hold a ridiculous percentage of the world's population, I'd guess being killed (at least under government sanction - illegal "convert or die" actions are harder to track in most cases) is not a threat to the majority, but certainly some degree of public shunning and limitation of job and social prospects would be.

I seem to be trending toward run-on sentences in this thread, for reasons which, while no doubt excellent, escape me at the moment, likely due to not getting enough sleep last night, since I had to go restock the first aid kit at 2:30 in the morning so I could get the scrape on my hand from moving some furniture to quit oozing blood, because that was really distracting while trying to get to sleep.

[makattak]

When people use religion as an excuse to skirt governmental actions, it is personal. Religion is a personal choice, not something you are born with.

We have reached the current level of vitriol because the government is dictating more and more of what can be done. Further, the federal government making these rules means that there is no opportunity for one community to make a different decision than another.

[SADShooter]

Considering China and India hold a ridiculous percentage of the world's population, I'd guess being killed (at least under government sanction - illegal "convert or die" actions are harder to track in most cases) is not a threat to the majority, but certainly some degree of public shunning and limitation of job and social prospects would be.

I seem to be trending toward run-on sentences in this thread, for reasons which, while no doubt excellent, escape me at the moment, likely due to not getting enough sleep last night, since I had to go restock the first aid kit at 2:30 in the morning so I could get the scrape on my hand from moving some furniture to quit oozing blood, because that was really distracting while trying to get to sleep.

So, was the night dark and stormy? 

[KD5NRH]

So, was the night dark and stormy? 

Full moon...though there was a bit of lightning off in the distance, and they kept saying it would rain today, but it hasn't, nor has it even clouded up significantly, about which I have somewhat mixed feelings, since I'd like it to cool off, but I'd rather not run in the rain tonight, assuming I still feel up to running after laundry, which just can't wait, because I'm out of clean work socks, (crew, for the higher top shoes) and I only thought to buy low-cut socks while I was at the store this morning.

[Tallpine]

People who don't agree with me are beyond the pal 

[SADShooter]

People who don't agree with me are beyond the pal 

There you go, casting a pall over the discussion...

[roo_ster]

When people use religion as an excuse to skirt governmental actions, it is personal. Religion is a personal choice, not something you are born with.

Your Cause & Effect-O-Meter is busted. 

In the recent Hobby Lobby case, fed.gov has shoved its nose where the COTUS does not allow it to go and fed.gov went out of its way to intrude on folks' religious values and actions.

Fed.gov intruded into what ought to be the non-political sphere of:
1. Labor market interactions, where employers and employees come to an agreement as to compensation (monetary or benefits or other-wise).
2. Property rights by dictating what business owners must do with their own property and that they will be punished for not complying.
3. Freedom of conscience by not allowing for opting out of morally disgusting medical insurance coverage.

To sum it up, fed.gov has made the personal political by making business-owners' religious beliefs a political football.

And it is the business owners that are making the personal political?

[charby]

To sum it up, fed.gov has made the personal political by making business-owners' religious beliefs a political football.

And it is the business owners that are making the personal political?

Last time I checked we are a not a theocracy, so religious beliefs should not matter when it comes to law.

I think you fail to see that at times.

[roo_ster]

Last time I checked we are a not a theocracy, so religious beliefs should not matter when it comes to law.

I think you fail to see that at times.

So, it would be OK with you if the USA outlawed the practice of Islam, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism?  The law is the law and religious beliefs should not matter if our elected representatives so legislate in the charby-verse.

I think you fail to understand the Constitution and the First Amendment.  We are supposedly a constitutional republic, though with comments like that quoted above I can see why we are slipping into authoritarianism.

(Here's a hint: it is not freedom from religion, it is freedom of religion.)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Perd Hapley]

Last time I checked we are a not a theocracy, so religious beliefs should not matter when it comes to law.

I think you fail to see that at times.

As makattak and roo_ster are trying to explain, when the government micromanages private behavior (through Obamacare, etc) then our private lives are politicized. The Hobby Lobbyists correctly pointed out that the .gov was encroaching on personal freedom of choice. As long as government remains meddlesome, special treatment for religious minorities (i.e., conservative Christians), is about the best we can hope for. The non-libertarian alternative would be coercing people into violating their religious traditions, just to comply with health insurance regulations.

(For the record, I'm not saying that religion is private in any way other than not being a function of government. Religion is no more private than most other things we do in our lives.)

[TommyGunn]

Last time I checked we are a not a theocracy, so religious beliefs should not matter when it comes to law.

I think you fail to see that at times.

So if you believe the use of abortofacient birth control is murder, you should still be forced to provide them (and pay for them) via your employee's health care, since the laws against murder stem from a Biblical source?
 There are times when "the law" and "religious beliefs'' are going to collide, and IMHO the more intrusive the govt. gets, the more often such collisions will occur.

[makattak]

Last time I checked we are a not a theocracy, so religious beliefs should not matter when it comes to law.

I think you fail to see that at times.

This is possibly the most frightening statement I have read this year.

Effectively you just made sincere conviction little more than a "the dog ate my homework" excuse to get out of something slightly unpleasant. That an otherwise (as far as I can tell) intelligent person does not understand religious conviction nor cares to understand the purpose of the first amendment indicates the doom of freedom in this country.

Because if you aren't free to think and believe, there will be no other freedom surviving.

[RoadKingLarry]

Last time I checked we are a not a theocracy, so religious beliefs should not matter when it comes to law.

I think you fail to see that at times.

I really hope that you are playing devil's advocate with that statement.

Even as an atheist I fully support religious freedom as protected by the 1st amendment. You have read it haven't you? it's pretty plain english.

I also fully support a persons religious choices and believe the .gov needs to butt the hell out of it and NOT force people to do things that are contrary to there beliefs.

I also read the 1st amendment to tell the government that it can't use force at the bidding of religion(s) to force people to bend to the will of religious tenents they do not subscribe to.

[Ben]

I really hope that you are playing devil's advocate with that statement.

Even as an atheist I fully support religious freedom as protected by the 1st amendment. You have read it haven't you? it's pretty plain english.

I also fully support a persons religious choices and believe the .gov needs to butt the hell out of it and NOT force people to do things that are contrary to there beliefs.

I also read the 1st amendment to tell the government that it can't use force at the bidding of religion(s) to force people to bend to the will of religious tenents they do not subscribe to.

Modern progressives, in general, in their treatment of religion and government, seem to have a big problem mixing up freedom of with freedom from. Religious beliefs would only not matter in law if the BoR said "freedom from". "Freedom of" indicates that they matter very much.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[charby]

I really hope that you are playing devil's advocate with that statement.

Even as an atheist I fully support religious freedom as protected by the 1st amendment. You have read it haven't you? it's pretty plain english.

I also fully support a persons religious choices and believe the .gov needs to butt the hell out of it and NOT force people to do things that are contrary to there beliefs.

I also read the 1st amendment to tell the government that it can't use force at the bidding of religion(s) to force people to bend to the will of religious tenents they do not subscribe to.

So what if I established a religion that the core belief was to get high on LSD every morning at sunrise, should my church be excluded from the controlled substance laws?

[RoadKingLarry]

So what if I established a religion that the core belief was to get high on LSD every morning at sunrise, should my church be excluded from the controlled substance laws?

I expect better argument from you.