Posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2004, at 8:12:03
In reply to Re: only applied to the election » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2004, at 7:47:08
> > Maybe politics should be treated like faith?
>
> > Bob
>
>
>
> Perhaps it should.I was taught there were three things to avoid discussing in polite company, e.g. at a dinner party. Those were sex (to avoid embarassment), politics and religion. The latter two because they provoke passionate reponses, but also because they are matters of conviction. You're not going to convince someone to change their mind in the time-frame of a conversation, and even if you could, that is neither the time nor the place. Talk of politics or religion is divisive. Polarizing.
That said, politics and religion can have an impact on the psyche (especially someone else's politics and someone else's religion). I like Bob's guideline that you should be restrained to positive or supportive expressions. Otherwise, it just becomes a dumping ground, or an argument, without any clear benefit.
I also see a distinction between e.g. faith and religion. Faith is sometimes all one has to work past a crisis. Arguing the specific religion which affords one with that faith is an arbitrary restriction on the means of invocation of faith itself; we all know what faith is, but how we get there is not necessarily relevant. I note the name of the board is Faith, not Religion.
In my opinion, talk of politics ought to be avoided altogether. In place of that, discussions of philosophies could be illuminating. A political conviction is based on philosophical positions. You need not identify as a Dem or Bushite or Christian or whatever, to discuss the merits or weaknesses of a policy or practise. And, you can still be both supportive and civil when discussing both merits and weaknesses.
Just my 2¢.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:410878
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/411525.html