I agree with you for the most part. I think there are a good number of religious fanatics that cause huge problems when making a claim purely for religious reasons.
But, unless I'm misunderstanding you, by your logic, would that mean that only those who bring religion into politics are responsible for the mudslinging? I think a lot of outrageous claims have been made in the name of anti-religion, or at least been made against those who have certain beliefs based on their religion.
Oh, certainly not, that was just one example and one side of things that I've noticed in my experiences. I absolutely agree with you that non-religious folks and those are just opposed to one religion or another are equally as "guilty" of flinging the mud onto the other, opposing side. But each one is a reaction to the other, so it's hard to say who's at fault or who started it or whatever.
I certainly don't think no one group is more mudslingy than the other though, not at all. I just think that those who DO bring their religions and morals into things have a really tough time seeing the other POV without also condemning them for those differing beliefs.
Re: This is my "keeping cool" iconfairytigerSeptember 9 2009, 20:55:47 UTC
I totally agree with your first point. When one group attacks another, the only way we know how to defend ourselves and therefore feel more secure is to not just come back with our own opinions but unleash the same level of attack our opponents did.
Your fourth point is why I kind of hate all pundit television cable "news" shows. O'Reilly is not news. Olbermann is not news. They are men with wildly strong opinions who unfortunately get air time and feel that that entitles them to say whatever they want. It's totally destructive.
Re: This is my "keeping cool" icon
anonymous
September 10 2009, 03:32:28 UTC
You've said this so well, and I agree with you completely. The political discourse has become uglier and more crude, in part, because all social discourse has. I was in a drug store in the middle of the day not too long ago, and a man several aisles away was speaking on his cell phone, loud enough for the entire store to hear. A business call, evidently, in which the man was telling his associate that so and so didn't have a ****ing clue, that so and so could kiss his a**. You get the idea. And I thought, 'Hey, man, there are children in this store!' Or go to a baseball game. Ever see a scene of people at a baseball game from the 1950s? The men in the stands are actually wearing suits and ties and hats! They aren't sitting there in shorts, their bellies peeking out from too-tight 'Kiss Me, I'm Bald' T-shirts, yelling every four-letter word ever conceived. But I digress...
I totally agree with you on CNN and Fox News. As I said to Mose, I find the pundits on those channels completely destructive because they are not reporting unbiased news, but people take it as such
( ... )
Pundits are not news reporters, and don't claim to be. If people take O'Reilly or Olbermann or Jon Stewart for news reporters, that's their ignorance at work. I don't think there is anything inevitably or inherently 'destructive' about people who analyze and comment on news events, as these people do. The real destructive situation is when an actual news reporter/anchor/journalist CLAIMS to be reporting in an unbiased fashion, but is actually spinning the news to further an agenda.
You're right, they don't claim to be news reporters, and I don't mean to say that the people themselves are destructive. I agree with you in that the real destructive part comes from audiences taking their opinion as fact.
Wow, everyone's spoken so eloquently already. And then there's Maude Beets. ;)
I 100% agree with B that many find it nigh on impossible to keep their morals and religious beliefs/OPPOSITION to any idea of religion from influencing their political views. And to some extent, I think that's...okay. Understandable, at the very least. However, when faced with the opposing political viewpoint, some see that as a direct attack on their morals and beliefs (ie, the exact thing you warn against here). Where the hold on a political idea may not be ironclad, one's grip on his/her morals and beliefs usually is
( ... )
You, as well as everyone else, are bringing up great points about religion in politics. It may even have to be its own townhall topic. Here's where I suppose my beef comes in: Now I'm not a very religious person in the sense that I don't practice or worship on a regular basis, but I do believe in God. But everyone gets their beliefs and values from somewhere right? Many people get them from how they were raised, or the culture they grew up in, what have you. These origins don't seem to be condemned or deemed illegitimate. So why are views that stem from religious background so taboo? If that happens to be the environment in which one was raised and subsequently formed values, how is that any different from forming beliefs in a secular upbringing?
I'm not trying to discredit your opinion, it's really just thinking out loud, and I do hope it comes across that way. I totally see your point, I'm just making sure you can see mine :)
No, I totally understand what you're saying. And you're right - we're all shaped by something. And I guess I didn't explain myself as well as I tried to on that point, because I have no issue with people being molded by a faith-based...life, I guess is the word I'm looking for. Or their background, education, or culture - any of the things you mentioned. I'd certainly not call it illegitimate. Quite the opposite; it's inevitable that all of those things will mold who you are. But that's why, I think, things in politics get heated - because sometimes, when presenting OR being presented with opposition, one can't perceive it as an objective argument. (God I hope that makes sense.) A debate/discussion about any issue boils down to two people (or sides), forgetting the main issue altogether and attacking each other as people. In short, YES. You're right. No one should discount what shapes others. BUT, I do think it's our responsibility, as rational individuals, to assess whether the influences to which we've been exposed - cultural,
( ... )
Re: The nature of, well, human nature....fairytigerSeptember 11 2009, 05:05:28 UTC
Welcome welcome!
Again, the sports analogy is not my favorite, since it lends itself to equating social past times with the law making that shapes our country. But you're right, we're so concerned with our side "winning" we have a hard time believing that it might not be what's best for the country's future.
I would argue that passion doesn't triumph thought, since passion for a subject is what leads us to become as educated about it as possible. Rather, passion can simultaneously be thought's driver and obstacle.
Re: The nature of, well, human nature....troutcoSeptember 11 2009, 07:21:02 UTC
Good points. But I'm afraid for some people politics IS a past-time -- just another way to ROOT for 'ideas' based on their marketing slogans rather than a thorough or thoughtful examination of the facts.
Hey just read the emails you get from the political parties. Very short on facts. Instead we get this : "Republicans are trying to crush Obamma's plan to make healthcare accessible to everyone. Stop them in their selfish quest. Donate today!"
Or this: "Once again, President Obama stepped in front of the prime time TV cameras to attempt to sell the Democrats' leftist health care scheme to legislators and anyone else who might still be paying attention." (this latter verbatim from an email....)
For all the debate about healthcare (for example) ... I wonder how many people have actually read the bill .. or know the facts and arguments on both sides. Instead it's liberals this, religious right that... (sounds like 'teams' to me :-)
Love your point about passion as both driver and obstacle!!! Well said!
Comments 20
Reply
But, unless I'm misunderstanding you, by your logic, would that mean that only those who bring religion into politics are responsible for the mudslinging? I think a lot of outrageous claims have been made in the name of anti-religion, or at least been made against those who have certain beliefs based on their religion.
Again, I'm just asking for clarification's sake.
Reply
I certainly don't think no one group is more mudslingy than the other though, not at all. I just think that those who DO bring their religions and morals into things have a really tough time seeing the other POV without also condemning them for those differing beliefs.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
That is to say, the more passionate one becomes in favor of a particular thing, the more vehemently one will tend to hate the opposing viewpoint.
Very much word. I tried to say the same thing, but you did it better. Not that I'm surprised or anything. ;)
Reply
Your fourth point is why I kind of hate all pundit television cable "news" shows. O'Reilly is not news. Olbermann is not news. They are men with wildly strong opinions who unfortunately get air time and feel that that entitles them to say whatever they want. It's totally destructive.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
I 100% agree with B that many find it nigh on impossible to keep their morals and religious beliefs/OPPOSITION to any idea of religion from influencing their political views. And to some extent, I think that's...okay. Understandable, at the very least. However, when faced with the opposing political viewpoint, some see that as a direct attack on their morals and beliefs (ie, the exact thing you warn against here). Where the hold on a political idea may not be ironclad, one's grip on his/her morals and beliefs usually is ( ... )
Reply
I'm not trying to discredit your opinion, it's really just thinking out loud, and I do hope it comes across that way. I totally see your point, I'm just making sure you can see mine :)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Again, the sports analogy is not my favorite, since it lends itself to equating social past times with the law making that shapes our country. But you're right, we're so concerned with our side "winning" we have a hard time believing that it might not be what's best for the country's future.
I would argue that passion doesn't triumph thought, since passion for a subject is what leads us to become as educated about it as possible. Rather, passion can simultaneously be thought's driver and obstacle.
Reply
Hey just read the emails you get from the political parties. Very short on facts. Instead we get this :
"Republicans are trying to crush Obamma's plan to make healthcare accessible to everyone. Stop them in their selfish quest. Donate today!"
Or this: "Once again, President Obama stepped in front of the prime time TV cameras to attempt to sell the Democrats' leftist health care scheme to legislators and anyone else who might still be paying attention." (this latter verbatim from an email....)
For all the debate about healthcare (for example) ... I wonder how many people have actually read the bill .. or know the facts and arguments on both sides. Instead it's liberals this, religious right that... (sounds like 'teams' to me :-)
Love your point about passion as both driver and obstacle!!! Well said!
Reply
Leave a comment