Brain Fertilizer

LOL. I liked the way Alex handled the information; but I think he is coming from a different perspective then you are; I think his point is that both sides have a lot to say for themselves and it is only when the discussion descends to name-calling and anger that its value is lost. That there is a lot to be said for the give and take of any discussion on G-d. Anyway, that was my take.

I am enjoying the discussion here as it hasn't lost perspective and has remained civil. I like a good, honest debate.

I think the real divide in this country is caused by the fact that the left's been out of intellectual gas for some time and is and has simply been in a reactionary mode for quite some time.

This should not be seen as a permanent state of affairs, merely a phase. The question is, how long? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?

Dean,
The left surely is out of intellectual gas. I'm not sure it is just a phase, though.
I mean, obviously there are intelligent people on both sides, and they will think of ideas that resonate with the population at large, yes, which supports your idea that this is only a phase.
But there are so many principles and special interest groups and automatic assumptions that go along with being a Democrat, that I'm not convinced that those ideas will be heard at all. The Democrat Party, as the main channel for the propogation of progressive ideas, is very much a top-down, do-it-the-way-we-tell-you organization. I don't really believe they can recover under the Democrat Banner. This post about what the word "choice" has come to mean to liberals/Democrats is part of the reason. Control is a very big issue among the liberals, and as our Star Wars philosophy tells us, "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your grasp." Except we're talking people instead of star systems, of course.
If all you mean is just "the non-right", well then, of course you are correct. One of the problems with this sort of discussion is that the terms "Leftist", "Liberal", "Progressive", and "Democrat" are slippery terms, all meaning slightly different things. Ideas cannot be suppressed, and it is quite possible that the emergence of a valid opposition ideology may be the process that kills the Democrat Party while maintaining many of the ideas that the Dems embraced.
One of the things I find most interesting is that the Democrats I encounter (mostly in print) seem to wish Republicans would all die or convert so they could implement their ideas unopposed, whereas the bulk of the Republicans I talk with would prefer to have a strong, loyal, valid opposition ideology to provide an alternative if they don't like the direction GOP leadership takes the party. Or do I just know more "conservatives" than "Republicans"?

Rachel Ann,
While I am arguing only my side, I actually do actually see some of the point to the secular side.
I don't know if I really want to return to the late 60s attitude toward Christianity. Non-Christian religious groups were often treated pretty shabbily.
But I do believe that despite some good points by the "secularization" side, the "plurality" argument is the correct one. I wouldn't be trying to advance it if I didn't think that way! [grin]
If I seem to be arguing for Christianity, it's just because that's what we have as the most prevalent example, it's also what at least a plurality believes in.
But I do think "plurality" and a "permissive" environment for all religions is the best way to go. Don't restrict anyone, just let everyone express what they want. Even that has some pitfalls, though, when you look at what's going on in Europe: after the filmmaker was murdered, an artist put up a mural that said, "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Despite Islam claiming the Old Testament prophets as prophets of Allah, despite incorporating the 10 Commandments into the Koran, some Muslims initiated a lawsuit saying the mural was offensive to their religion. We'd have to institute a better way of dealing with disputes like that, because we already have non-Christians being offended by seeing a star on top of a decorated tree, and their being offended by calling it a Christmas tree resulting in the White House "Holiday" tree. Sheesh!

Granted, I'm only 30, so I wasn't around during the era of the Democratic Party from FDR to LBJ. But from what I understand, the DNC had cornered the market on compassion, and empowerment of minorities.

They were the party fot the common man. Somewhere (and I like to think it was the 80s under Reagan) the scales tiped and now all of the sudden the DNC wasn't the party for the little guy. It was not as populist, but instead the RNC was more the populist party.

Another observation I made, the DNC is now VERY policy oriented. I've noticed this from a lot of the offical and unoffical talk. Examples, like
"How can you support Candidate X, when he feels this way about Issue Y." or particular democrats trumpet their platform on one particular issue, or policy. To me, this seems very one-track-minded. Almost too focused.

Republicans, I've also found, tend to move in policy (when they have to) but prefer to look long term. ("Sure, I'll conceede this particular point A and point B to you, but as long as these other points C-Z are agreed upon, and we can tackle these other two points later. Just as long as the ball stays rolling.") In this case, its philosophy thining, not policy thinking.

It just might be the DNC needs to focus on the big picture again, and not the individual tasks to get there. Because it looks like the entire party is stuck in the weeds and not on the roadbed. (to borrow an analogy)

I guess in my mind one of the things the USA stands for no state religion, and that means no state support of any particular set of beliefs. I was reading on another blog about something to the affect of Jews knowing that Christians tolerated other religions. To me that sounds kind of like "Well, you know how Uncle/Aunt X is. But their family so we tolerate them." We all have our values. As an Orthodox Jews I highly value what I feel is the truth in terms of G-d and the moral laws.

The US isn't about tolerating religous beliefs; it is about allowing them to grow and prosper unhindered, even when the run counter to ours, as long as what is being expressed isn't otherwise illegal. I'm not worried about someone else's beliefs in where I may spend eternity; I'm not buying into their belief system. I do care that my child or my grandchild is made to feel wrong becuse s/he doesn't want to pray to a god not believed in (as has happened in certain areas even recently). Or because the child doesn't want to recite the pledge because, according to their religious standards, one shouldn't take an oath, period.

And even worse than the child being made to feel wrong is the child being victimized or fearing vicitmization. As I stated in a private conversation, my father was forced to pray to Jessus; forced. He didn't; he moved his lips without uttering a prayer, but to bring back prayer to schools? How is it possible to safeguard when even when it is illegal in certain areas to do so, people have prayed publically in the schools and made fun of those who don't?

Think of it this way; what if Chritianity slips into the minority. Would you feel plurality is okay if the X-mas tree gave way to another religious icon? And if the holidays that one got off from school and work followed another religous calendar?
And though you were free to worship as you saw fit on the days you held dear to your heart, you had to use personal days to enjoy them, and everyone treated it as some sort of favor to you that you could take off in the first place?

One year in high school (and this was a college preparatory school. One didn't get in unless one did well on the SATS and such. And I mean well.)and it was I believe my history teacher, announced in class that over the Rosh Hashanah holidays anyone taking off had a report to do or something extra to do because, in her words "it's the Jewish new year and all you do is eat and party so we would have time to do the extra work." I forgive most people for not knowing that we don't just eat and we certainly don't party, that it is a solemn day , and that religous Jews don't write, or use electricity and we spend a significant amount of time praying; but this was the history teacher. Did she know that little about a sizeable porportion of her student class?

One year the schools closed so much for snow days that there was a possiblity that they would have to open up on Saturday. Not Sunday of course, when everyone could go, but Saturaday. And that of course could cause problems for some teachers who were religious, such as my friend.

Maybe there is a bunch of bitterness that is only coming out now that I am away from all that. It is so pleasant being in a country where one's own holidays take center stage.

Well, personally, I think it has gotten to the point where Christians are being made to feel bad for being Christian. Look at all the newspaper articles being negative about the "religious" right. Look at all the mainstream media lumping Christians together as "evangelicals". Listen to the liberal pundits calling Bush a fundamentalist on par with the Taliban.
And while I admit it is hard to truly project how you would feel in a certain situation, I don't think I'd have a problem with another religious icon replacing the Christmas Tree or the Cross as the most commonly-seen religious symbol, per se. I think I would have a problem with the idea of enough immigrants not becoming assimilated enough that their culture takes over the US melting pot, but it it came from within through willing conversions, I don't think I'd have a problem with it.
Now, I do have a problem with forcing people to pray to Jesus. Even being forced to pray is wrong.
Was it an overzealous teacher rather than policy, though?
Not that it makes the pressure any less real, but if it was just an overzealous teacher, there are easier steps to fixing it. That seems roughly analogous to your having no problem with politicians and govt officials feeling pressure to not express religious belief, i.e., there are pressures to conform that are very real despite what actually might be written down.
Which is one of the many reasons I started this whole discussion: I think we are going too far down the path of eliminating public expression of religious faith...while I don't want to return to forced prayers in school, I wouldn't mind at least allowing prayer in school; and if you allow minority and gay and Jewish groups to organize in school, you should also allow Bible studies to be formed.
And, hey, if the only good this thread of talk has done is let you vent a little bitterness safely, then it was worth it! :)
It can be hard to control the discussion if someone wants to be a jerk, but I hope I can always keep this a place where people can express honest feelings safely.

I wonder if your last line might not reveal something....no matter what pluralistic or secular society we create here in the US, it is still nicer to be in a society whose beliefs and values largely mirror your own. Not homogeneous to the point of calcification, hopefully, but the more values held in common, the easier the process of governing the whole is.
This is the basic argument against multiculturalism...I'm not on-board with it yet, but thoughts like what you just uttered are fairly persuasive.
As is the idea that no minority group ever succeeded in the United States until the managed to assimilate to the whole.
But that's another topic.

Alex says: "Wars of all kinds, military, cultural and those of the class variety, are begun and fought by absolutists and phony 'patriots' of all stripes."
Sorry. Silly ststments like that should be challenged whenever they are made. Some wars are fought so that people like Alex can write what they want. Maybe someday Alex will be right, but not now.