"Every political view is divisive be it religious or secular"
To a certain degree I agree with this. I think it doesn't come down so much to one religion or another, or even one political outlook or another. But rather what is one's worldview, and is one politically active. People act on their worldviews. If my worldview is one where I believe social justice is everyone's business, and that government should lead the way with it, it matters not whether that worldview comes from my Chritianity and Christ's focus on helping the poor, or from my secular, liberal upbringing. You can label me one thing or another, but when the rubber hits the road it is the worldview that drives my opinions and actions, not my "label".
"The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement."
Again, I agree to a certain extent. Even if the "religion" is secular humanism. But on the other hand, our political parties SHOULD reflect our worldviews. Else why would we support them? The Democrats have power because those of similar mind support and vote for them. Same with Republicans.
Is that not the heart of Democracy?
"When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment."
Perhaps. But the definition of "carrying out a religious program" will differ wildly depending on who you talk to. To those who have the worldview that said program supports, it is only the logical, right thing to do, not necessarily a specific religious agenda hiding in a back room plotting to take over the country. To those who do not share that worldview, it is obvious to them that the program is religious in nature and ther people supporting it are mere sheep who follow their church leaders' words without thinking.
And I think that is why conservatives, in general, are seen as backward-thinking and cold, with the underlying idea that they just don't understand the liberal's points, and if they did they would be enlightened and agree. And why liberals, in general, are seen as immoral and idealistic, and if they only understood "real life" and had a non-changing moral compass, they would be enlightened and agree.
And that's not even getting into the dichotomy between those who think government's main goal is to support the individual's rights over those of the community, and those who believe the opposite. What the government's role should be in any given discussion usually is pretty close to the heart of the disagreement.
But on the other hand, our political parties SHOULD reflect our worldviews. Else why would we support them? The Democrats have power because those of similar mind support and vote for them. Same with Republicans.
except they don't. we have 2 choices, one dimension, where we have 3 (or more) dimensions of stuff to deal with: economic policies (lessaiz-fare capitalism to socialism), individual freedoms vs. protecting the members of society, and the power of the local & state governments vs. the power of the federal system on the nation as a whole.
this is where single issue politics get involved.
some people are "republican" because of the abortion issue (protecting society, in this case the unborn's right to become part of that society), while others are republican because of the gun issue (individual freedom).
some people are "republican" because of the emphasis on smaller federal government ("states' rights"), yet they were at odds last month with the "must protect the members of society" side of the republican party when it came to the Schiavo case.
and BOTH sides don't represent the majority of the people in economic issues because in spite of their campaigning, their finances that keep them campaigning (and therefore in office) are all lobbies from corporations looking for favors. on BOTH sides. so neither side speaks correctly for individual freedom in the face of corporate control of our resources. pure lessaiz-fare capitalism is at odds with individual freedoms AND protecting the members of society, since both of those purposes have aspects of social welfare involved.
there would need to be at least 6 parties to come close to approximating the current state of the country, and the more centrist ones would be the winners almost every time.
the real problem in how we see elections as black or white is that the more vital part of the electoral process (getting the right candidates to start with) is ignored today. few people vote for candidates for congress or state legislations at the primary level, except those who really strongly support one (and centrists/moderates rarely feel the need to "strongly" support anything). so the extremists get the wins at the primaries and suddenly the core vote is a choice between extremists.
when the moderates DO get involved in the primary process, common sense can suddenly take over against conventional wisdom. That's how "Uncle Newt" lost.
(no subject)
To a certain degree I agree with this. I think it doesn't come down so much to one religion or another, or even one political outlook or another. But rather what is one's worldview, and is one politically active. People act on their worldviews. If my worldview is one where I believe social justice is everyone's business, and that government should lead the way with it, it matters not whether that worldview comes from my Chritianity and Christ's focus on helping the poor, or from my secular, liberal upbringing. You can label me one thing or another, but when the rubber hits the road it is the worldview that drives my opinions and actions, not my "label".
"The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement."
Again, I agree to a certain extent. Even if the "religion" is secular humanism. But on the other hand, our political parties SHOULD reflect our worldviews. Else why would we support them? The Democrats have power because those of similar mind support and vote for them. Same with Republicans.
Is that not the heart of Democracy?
"When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment."
Perhaps. But the definition of "carrying out a religious program" will differ wildly depending on who you talk to. To those who have the worldview that said program supports, it is only the logical, right thing to do, not necessarily a specific religious agenda hiding in a back room plotting to take over the country. To those who do not share that worldview, it is obvious to them that the program is religious in nature and ther people supporting it are mere sheep who follow their church leaders' words without thinking.
And I think that is why conservatives, in general, are seen as backward-thinking and cold, with the underlying idea that they just don't understand the liberal's points, and if they did they would be enlightened and agree. And why liberals, in general, are seen as immoral and idealistic, and if they only understood "real life" and had a non-changing moral compass, they would be enlightened and agree.
And that's not even getting into the dichotomy between those who think government's main goal is to support the individual's rights over those of the community, and those who believe the opposite. What the government's role should be in any given discussion usually is pretty close to the heart of the disagreement.
(no subject)
except they don't. we have 2 choices, one dimension, where we have 3 (or more) dimensions of stuff to deal with: economic policies (lessaiz-fare capitalism to socialism), individual freedoms vs. protecting the members of society, and the power of the local & state governments vs. the power of the federal system on the nation as a whole.
this is where single issue politics get involved.
some people are "republican" because of the abortion issue (protecting society, in this case the unborn's right to become part of that society), while others are republican because of the gun issue (individual freedom).
some people are "republican" because of the emphasis on smaller federal government ("states' rights"), yet they were at odds last month with the "must protect the members of society" side of the republican party when it came to the Schiavo case.
and BOTH sides don't represent the majority of the people in economic issues because in spite of their campaigning, their finances that keep them campaigning (and therefore in office) are all lobbies from corporations looking for favors. on BOTH sides. so neither side speaks correctly for individual freedom in the face of corporate control of our resources. pure lessaiz-fare capitalism is at odds with individual freedoms AND protecting the members of society, since both of those purposes have aspects of social welfare involved.
there would need to be at least 6 parties to come close to approximating the current state of the country, and the more centrist ones would be the winners almost every time.
the real problem in how we see elections as black or white is that the more vital part of the electoral process (getting the right candidates to start with) is ignored today. few people vote for candidates for congress or state legislations at the primary level, except those who really strongly support one (and centrists/moderates rarely feel the need to "strongly" support anything). so the extremists get the wins at the primaries and suddenly the core vote is a choice between extremists.
when the moderates DO get involved in the primary process, common sense can suddenly take over against conventional wisdom. That's how "Uncle Newt" lost.