alansmithee

After reading (and baing involved with) threads on this and other boards, reading the papers, watching news shows, and listening to newstalk radio, I started to wonder if there is any way to reconcile all the various interests/views/ideologies across the country.

There is numerous ways that the country seems sharply divided. Besides the obvious individual issues (gay marriage, abortion, gun control, etc.) there is also a sharp divide between Dem/Rep, conservative/liberal, christian/non-christian, religious/non-religious, rural/urban, hell even urban/suburban. And it seems neither side wants to give any.

And even though I'm on the victorious side for most of those this election cycle, I think it is disturbing now and for the future that there is no seeming compromise. With a winner-take-all system, 3% becomes a massive margin. And even though I know my side might be up now, I know 2 or 4 years down the road if the differences cannot be reconciled I know I could face having my opinions totally blocked by those in office.

Is it worth it for the Reps to try to push as much far-right/central (depending on your view ) agenda through, and hope they can hold on later? Should they make the compromise and attempt to be more giving on certain issues, but face the possibility of having the Dems come in and go far-left/central as retribution for supposed wrongs already down/to be done in the future? Because if the differences are that great, would any meeting halfway be accepted as such? I think only 25-50% of either party is hardcore, but I feel the remainder of each party would not risk alienating their base if they feel people are really that split, so would be more radical.

Also, I remember from my one of my government classes a year or so ago that many other countries in Europe don't have a strict winner-take-all elections. If 50% vote for party A, 30% party B, and 20% party C that proportion would take office in the legislative body. Now, if anyone is in a country like that (and I think my prof said France was one) what do you think of the system? Is my understanding correct? And one of the problems my prof said was that marginal parties had a disproportionate amount of power, do you find that to be so?

Lockjaw

Yes we are. America has a long history of being sharply divided on many issues. This isn't a new thing just a much more visible thing as you now are bombarded with the varying opinions. The internet is a wonderful thing and being part of it gives you instant access to anybody's opinions at any time. Add into it a growing self righetousness that ALL sides on every issue seem to have and there you have your problem.

The main thing that could fix this is some good old fashioned compromise. We as a people need to realize that this country was partly built on compromise, it thrived on it and will only move forward that way. The thing is though people are so reactionary. People on the left knee jerk at something somebody on the right did. Then people on the right knee jerk right back and lean farther and farther to the polar opposites which wouldn't happen if people sat down talked things through calmly opened their minds to other opinions and attempted to find a decent compromise.
Take the hot topic of abortion. Many on the right think it should be disbared totally even in the most horrific of cases. Many on the left think it should be allowed without question at any point at any time for any reason. Needless to say with two totally seperate views things will get nasty but with a little understanding on both sides a workable middle ground wouldn't be THAT hard to reach. Many people who say they are slanted heavily against abortion in all it's forms after a little talking to will admit it's not right for a woman to HAVE to carry a child to term if it could kill her or if the child will be severly disabled. But at the same time people who vouch for reproductive rights likely wouldn't think it's correct to abort a perfectly viable fetus simply because a young person decided that they didn't want the responsibility.

Konichiwaneko

I honestly think it's only that way if your percieve it that way.

__________________

DJMala

It really scares me to think that the answer to your question may be no. Look at places like Sudan and Somalia, Croatia, or even Iraq. Most of the problems in those places are caused by disparate ethnic groups, people with differing or opposing viewpoints, forced together because the political boundaries were originally drawn by Europeans who didn't give a damn about the indigenous population. They struggle against each other, jockeying for position, and it leads to nothing but poverty, hatred, and death.

We are, of course, nowhere near that yet. But I'm afraid if we keep going down the road we're on, it will eventually get that bad. I think the only way to save this country is if we stop dividing ourselves up. Even your question betrays the mentality that is prevalent today... "my side", "their side", "us", and "them". We need to stop thinking of ourselves as liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, and start thinking of ourselves as Americans once again. This country was built on diversity. Of course we'll have differences of opinion. What we need to do is discuss those differences, work it out, build a compromise, rather than just calling names and screaming at each other. Any other way, I'm afraid, would lead to absolute disaster.

The Magic

The nation has always been divided. I believe Lincoln was the first to refer to the United States as a whole one entity, instead of a collection of states.

Manx

From the practical perspective:

The West Coast and the North East are too far apart to be one country, if a seperate country is supposed to be sitting in between.

The rest of the country would die a fast financial death without the West Coast and North East.

aktornado

Yes, we're still one country. We will be for a long time to come. The division we see today between liberals and conservatives is insignificant compared to many of the divisions we've had, and survived, in the past.

alansmithee

I'm thinking more of an ideological split. And I don't personally know of a time where it seemed there was this much division besides the Civil War and the mid '60's-early '70's. Both sides have seemingly separated themselves along clearly drawn lines. And if that's the case, where there be alternating periods of rampant liberalism/conservativism?

Mephisto2

Of course it is.

These elections are nothing compared to the 1860's. It's just politics. Everyone will settle down eventually and get on with mowing their lawn, walking their dog, going to work, marrying their same-sex partner... hang on a minute... erm..



Mr Mephisto

TheFu

There could easily be compromise if the northern liberal elites would quit looking down on those of us living in the south like we're backwoods morons. We just live a simple life. We love our families and we believe in God. We think marriage is something that God gave us, not something the government gave us to give us a tax break or insurance benefits or to shelter our personal property when we die. If liberals would show the same freaking compassion to conservatives as they did to jane doe crackhead lesbian welfare mother then maybe there wouldn't be such a divide.

cthulu23

Well, this is an enlightened post. Damn liberal elites, they hate all things southern. Wait, I'm a southern native and I don't agree with you at all. Could it be that the south doesn't exactly speak with one voice? Could it be that maybe we don't all think that our political views are mandated and supported by god? Next time, speak for yourself and not the entire south. You make us look bad.

I think that I see a pattern here. Everything is the fault of the left because they aren't tolerant enough. Does anyone else see a problem with that statement?

smooth

hahahahahaha



*gasp*
oh, shit






hahahahahaha








EDIT:
*gasps for more air*
hahahahahaha

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Rdr4evr

I second that.

Manx

Hahahahah!

Class.

flstf

I don't think it's the fault of the left or right. It's just the natural order of things. No government lasts forever. I don't think we are so superior that we can keep it from falling apart here as well. Our experiment in democracy has lasted a couple hundred years and it has been a good long run so far. Of course we should try to hold it together as long as possible and maybe we can beat the odds. But people are people and we are getting more divided even though times are not that bad for most of us. The true test will come when really bad times show up again.

guthmund

Absolutely. I think if you look at a map on how individual counties voted you'd be surprised how many liberal elites live right next door, my friend.

My grandfather remarked the other day that this is the most divided he's ever seen America. This man fought at the ass end of World War II, managed through Vietnam, seen the fall of Richard Nixon and Lewinsky"gate." I'd have to agree. I think we've been slowly rolling down this track for a while. Now we've hit that first junction and the country waits while we figure out what to do.

Let me tell you something, I'm not upset that President Bush won a second term. It's the way he went about it that makes me upset. Basing an entire election campaign on fear, on scaring the shit out of people is reprehensible. Vote for me or bad things happen, man. Bad things. This election was never about his political agenda or his policies. If he had run and won touting his accomplishments and projecting an alternate vision for the future, I wouldn't near as upset about him winning the election. Instead we were subjected to "terrorism, terrorism, 9/11, 9/11, nuclear bombs in the middle of cities, terror, terror, terror." and it scared the shit out people.

Now, there's another sect of Republican voters that I haven't mentioned and am relectant to even broach. The "moral" voters. Largely the same group of people who recently voted to allow legal discrimination of U.S. citizens simply because they're a little different. This is legalized bigotry. There is much more to say on this matter, but there are numerous threads devoted to just this subject. I will, however, leave with this...

And my personal favorite....

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Boo

If this is true, what would happen to the West Coast and the North East? I think the starving masses would seek to reunite.

Are the entire areas of the West Coast really like the populated areas (referring to the farm communities in the eastern sides of OR and WA) or are they more like the conservative areas like Idaho, Utah, Nevada. Would it not be more accurate to describe the West Coast liberal zone as Hwy 5 plus 100 miles east and draw the line there? Just because a state turned blue does not mean that the entire geographical area is of a certain mindset.

This topic reminds me of something a guy said a while back:

If 1 out of 5 people are out of place, look around, if the 4 people around you are in place, maybe it is you.

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.

scout

I really don't have a dog in this fight, but if your going to quote scripture you might as well be fair about it.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Romans 1:26-27:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

I Corinthians 6:9:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."

I Timothy 1:9-10:
"Law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and fornicators and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching."

rukkyg

You forget Canada. If Canada and the Northeast, great lakes, and the west form, we can be the United States of Canada. The south shall be known as Jesusland. They can keep Alaska and drill for oil there.

yster

I Corinthians 6:9:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."

Aside from this putting 'effeminate' = metrosexual?, fornicators = anyone who has sex for purposes other than conception? and 'drunkards' on equal footing of burning in eternal hellfire, I was raised attending Lutheran services, have read the bible cover to cover, and can safely say you can make it say anything you want depending on how you quote it. It was written by dozens of different people, and they've already dug up some of the 'rejected' books in the Gnostics. It contradicts itself on every other page, and has rules *clearly* laid out that no one follows today, simply because they are not convenient. (dietary restrictions, for example) People only drag out the bible to attack the things they dislike, but refuse to embrace it as a whole. If someone wants to live by the rules of the bible, I can respect that, but picking and choosing or remaining deliberately ignorant of unfavorable passages seems to tear down any claim to a moral authority even in a person's personal opinion. Is it the word of God or not?
I realize the quoted passages were just general snips to present aspects that might seem to be at odds with the perceived reality, but even to a religious person, I think they should be carefully considered before being accepted as any kind of guide.

smooth

for example, I've been trying for the past few years to use those above quotes to convince my wife (a devout lutheran) that lesbianism is fine and dandy.

haven't found anything against it. I see shit about men lying with men, and women lying with other men, but nothing so far against women lying with other women.


Jesus the Pimp -- you're my savior

oh yeah, and why the hell can't I have more than one wife?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Redlemon

Halx answered this one already in a post elsewhere:



A tempting thought right now, but impractical.

Stompy

Dunno if it occurred to most of you, but religion shouldn't be involved in any legislation whatsoever.

Separation of church and state, remember?

So next time you babble off about "god gave us marriage", just realize that it means nothing nor does it hold any water because it's irrelevant. I don't know where people get off thinking that they can incorporate religion into law... you can't limit the actions of someone else based on your beliefs that most others don't share or care about.

__________________
I love lamp.

roachboy

the bushspeech of yesterday gives you a fair index of how the notion of unity can be used in an attempt to shut down spaces of legitimate political opposition.

i do not really care if america is divided or not in principle because i do not care about the notion of nation--i see it as a delusion, a form of collective mental disorder.

i do care about the right to dissent.

the way i see it, the whole handwringing about unity is a way of trying to frame as somehow natural divisions that are strictly political.

in this war of position, the right has a tactical advantage.
it will not last.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

roachboy

crap--double post---sorry.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aliali

Separation of church and state means no establishment of religion, it does not mean that people or legislators cannot vote a certain way because of their beliefs, religious or otherwise.

The majority can limit the actions of someone else. They do it all the time. All the time. Whether or not all of the voters on these gay marriage initiatives had the same reason for voting, we do know that those who voted the ban gay marriage have some sort of beliefs that most people both share and care about.

TheKak

Marriage became a social issue instead of a religious issue as soon as the government gave tax benefits to married couples. Because YOUR religion says that gays shouldn't marry, doesnt mean someone elses religion says they can't. You are discriminating on a group of people using religion as a crutch for your intolerance. Stop forcing your believes on gay couples and let them do and believe as they please. If you think they are going to hell because of what they do, then thats your right to believe what you want. If you want to follow the Bible strictly, then maybe you should start trying to put gays to death while quoting Leviticus. Or stop eating pork, or touching women who are on their period, or stop allowing bastards into church, and start sacrificing animals.

__________________
Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

smooth

all that and more.


but here's the real kicker that no evangelical has been able to answer me, yet. subsequently, I wonder if this post will be ignored. but let's just put this out there and see if anyone is actually brave enough to address it:


according to the tenets of free-will in the current dogma of most all american evangelical branches of christianity, it's a given that your deity can not force you to comply to his will. he has to allow you to choose his grace and all that great stuff for salvation.


there is no biblical mandate to force people to obey the code within it.

if there were, why doesn't the deity do so?


why do you feel a moral obligation to force people to not be sinful when your own deity doesn't do it?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

KMA-628

I'll try.....

I am a recovering evangelical, but I remember the days well.

O.K., this is correct (even the terminology is correct, minus "great stuff").

This is where you lost me.

I agree with the mandate part, but I am not following how the "deity" doesn't do so.

Also, there is a little misconception regarding the last statement regarding the "not be sinful". One of the tenets of modern-day Christianity is "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god" (Romans something, something). I don't see it preached as to "not be sinful" but to strive not to be sinful, knowing that we will all fail in some way or another (hence the salvation part - to save us from ourselves, etc., etc.)

killeena

Ok, that is all fine and dandy if you believe that, but according to the previous scriptures quoted above, shouldn't you leave the judging to god?

guthmund

The point I was trying to make, albeit not very well, was that you can't possibly have it both ways. Just to use homosexuality because it seems to be the most important (11 states voted to ban marriage this election). You can't use some scripture from the Bible to pass judgement on the homosexual agenda because they are abominations and still follow Christ's command of love your neighbor and do not judge, lest you be judged. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that if you are a Christian you aren't allowed to pick and choose what parts you will follow and those you will ignore. However hypocritical I may think it is, this isn't even what really bothers me.

The Republican Right does not own a monopoly on morality. You have morals? Fantastic, everybody needs some, right? You get them from the Bible? Fantastic, there's lot of good stuff in there. However, just because you gleaned a little insight from a book you picked up doesn't mean you've cornered the market on righteousness. There are a lot of good, moral people on both sides of the aisle that never cracked a holy book or ever set foot on sacred ground.

My problem with these people isn't that they are Christian or born again Evangelicals, whatever. My problem lies in the fact that they are trying to push their agenda, which is based on their perceived notions of what is and isn't moral, on me. I don't care what they believe. Believe what you want to, but don't try to legislate your faith into my country's laws.

One side seems dead set to do just that and the other set seems dead set to avoid it all costs. That's why America seems so divided right now. There has to be compromise. Compromise that works for everyone of every faith, sex, ethnicity and sexual preference.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

alansmithee

I don't see how that is that hard to answer. They think that society is better living non-sinful life. Also, just because someone has to choose their own salvation, doesn't mean that they cannot be guided.

Now, I have a couple of questions:

What is wrong with someone using the tenets of the Bible as their moral code? If someone has the same beliefs, but they didn't come from the Bible would they be any more/less valid?

Also, I define homosexuality as the ACT of people of the same sex having physical relations. Why should that act gain special status over any other behavior someone chooses? And if it is fine, why not polygamy, or get rid of age of concent laws?

smooth

thanks KMA for going through this with me. In the spirit of full disclosure, I grew up episcopalian, drifted over to fundamentalism, rounded it out with a strict application of judaism and popped a cherry on top in the form of marrying the daughter of a pastor from the most fundamental version of lutheranism (WELS) and card carrying christian coalition.


I read a bit of greek and hebrew, self taught, so no grand credential. but I'm up on my fundie doctrine is my point. the weird verbage isn't so much that I'm not versed, but my own weird hang-ups about using christian discourse in an effort to not participate in its dissemination.

that out of the way:


what I should say to make it more clear is:

According to the modern version of salvation, god gives humans a choice to seek repentance and salvation. He doesn't stop people from sinning. in fact, he allows it for a variety of reasons depending on who is asked. Such as, to prove his glory, to give you a chance to understand his grace, or love, or because of free-will, or due to the notion that you can't be punished unless you have a choice to follow him but choose not to.

Any or all of those reasons are explanations for why sin exists in this world according to the overarching evangelical worldview (not that it's monolithic). But the basic point is, for some reason, sin exists even though god could just eradicate it right now.

but he doesn't. and jesus didn't. and so I wonder where christians come up with the notion that they have a moral obligation to stop other people from sinning.

I can understand abortion--because then they rely on the fact that they have a moral obligation to end killing of innocent lives (don't anyone jump on this, please, I realize various contradictions that may play out in real life).

But how does homosexuality come into play? For example, in all cases of homosexuality in the new testament, people were cast from the community and presumably from salvation. fine. but paul didn't go around proclaiming that christians should support legislation to govern the behavior. in fact, he and jesus explained just the opposite--that this world was to be left to the sinners while the believers should concentrate on spiritual affairs before the coming.


now I'm not adhering to the notion of an all inclusive religiousity. I realize people can point to places where it is acceptable and demanded to excommunicate (either violently or symbolically) the sinner.

but there is no moral requirement for them to engage with the state to stop people from sinning. so keep in mind that this is only in regards to homosexuality.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

KMA-628

o.k., my head hurts now.....

gotta go pick up my daughter. I will take some advil, read your post again and try and respond later.

/BTW - raised Episcopalian then went to a "Quaker/Friends" church in SoCal.

smooth

well, I actually agree with both of your last propositions. I see no reason why polygamy should be barred or age of consent laws--which appear to be completely arbitrary in their implementation from state to state and a very real subjugation of the 'minor' body based upon the notion that people under a socially constructed age of reasoning capacity have no ability to choose their own course of sexuality. hopefully no one will translate that into support for molestation or rape. however, there are ways to effect and aid consensual acts of sexuality between people of varying age gaps in positive manners. I know of at least one nation that does so effectively.


I see nothing wrong with someone using the bible as a basis for moral evaluation or even judgement on one another. I even think that homosexuals, at least the ones I know, would rather face scorn than disenfranchisement and/or political subjugation. Sounds weird, but hate me all you want, just don't codify it!

But I'm not saying that one ought not to do that--I really don't support such actions, but that is not particularly material to my point. obviously I would rather people not hate or even dislike one another or their actions.

I don't think any act should gain special status. not even straight marriage, but it has it. but that's not the point either.

the point is that I want to know where christians derive a moral requirement, in the same sense they feel a moral requirement to stop the killing of babies who can't defend themselves, to stop two adults from engaging in civil recognition of their union?

as in, if they don't stop civil unions or gay marriages, they will be held accountable before god on judgement day for not putting an end to it.


it's one thing to think, god's going to ask me why I allowed babies to go unprotected. I might have to say I tried to stop people from killing them.

but they won't be asked: why did you let gays get married? because the rational answer is, hey, they're sinners. even if I passed a law, they would still keep doing it outside my sight. and you would be perfectly righteous to exclaim that your responsibility was met by excommunicating them from the community of believers.


but if it isn't a requirement, then you have to come to terms with the misuse of scripture to satisfy your own comfort zone. that someone sinners infringe on your personal space. which they do, by their very existence. but you don't possess this world yet. by your own belief system, if you subscribe to the bible, you are to let sinners play their selves out until the coming so they can be judged by he who holds the sword.

when you usurp that authority, you diminish the glory of he who is the true judge. he's reserved that right for himself. I hope you understand that--because that's what you'll be judged on in this case.

Christians, I think you need to meditate on this.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Manx

Holy shit! (Literally)

Tophat665

Yes, I agree. Many people in the south no longer live in the back woods.

Is it really elitism if you are better than the other guy? (Hint: driving in a circle is not a sport.)

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

adam

When you stop behaving like backwoods morons, you'll have an argument. In my book, anti-gay marriage amendments are moronic.

That said, what northern liberal elites? Do you have, y'know, actual quotes from the campaign or something? Because I'm from Texas.

ravenradiodj

scout, Leviticus also says that eating shellfish is an abomination, so if you've ever had lunch at Red Lobster, I guess you're going to burn in your hell along with all those fags you hate so much.

Oh, the Old Testament also says it's ok to sell my daughter into slavery. She's 8 and in good health. Since you're the expert, what's a good price to ask for her?

________________________________________________________________________

Gimme That Old Time Religion - PAGAN FOR LIFE!

ravenradiodj

Originally Posted by TheFu
There could easily be compromise if the northern liberal elites would quit looking down on those of us living in the south like we're backwoods morons. We just live a simple life. We love our families and we believe in God. We think marriage is something that God gave us, not something the government gave us to give us a tax break or insurance benefits or to shelter our personal property when we die. If liberals would show the same freaking compassion to conservatives as they did to jane doe crackhead lesbian welfare mother then maybe there wouldn't be such a divide.


Gee, TheFu, every gay person and pagan I know believes the same things.

You're so right, we should be as compassionate as those kind, caring conservatives of the south, who have such a tradition of tolerance for those not like them. It was so kind of you to build separate bathrooms and water fountains years ago, when we thoughtless Yankee liberals made everyone share the same ones. I know that was, well, 30 or 40 years ago, and the King and Evers families really should get over their grief and move on, dwelling on the past isn't healthy, and, after all, the Klan membership isn't quite what it used to be in the South, they can't swing half the county elections they did back in the golden age of Southern hospitality. You're right, the South is known for its history of tolerance and compassion, to use your word. Tell me, would that lesbian welfare mother be welcome in your church, at your dinner table, being friends with your daughter?

Before you say it, let me say it. I've lived in the North all my 38 years, and there's plenty of bigotry, hatred, racism, insanity and ignorance up here too. I'm the last person who'd say that the North is better than the South - the main difference seems to be that we up here have no manners at all. But let's be honest here, sir. Look at your neighbors, and tell me the lack on Northern liberal compassion for them is a factor in their lives. Get real.