(no subject)

[dragonlady7]

from spacellama:

This article in SFGate by Joan Ryan sums up very neatly a lot of what I have been trying to say and what i have heard my friends trying to say.

We Barely Recognize Each Other

Our country has always included a mix of religious and political beliefs. But we shared a foundation of certain "truths to be self-evident'' that allowed us to meet on common ground. Today, I don't know. Our belief systems - - what is right and wrong, what is patriotic and what is not, what is truth and what is not -- are so different and so dramatically shape how we interpret news and information that we seem no longer to be living within the same culture.

I liked the snappy ending, though it's hard for me to share her conviction-- I would've thought it was already self-evident, but I was obviously wrong. I wish I could understand the opposite point of view, but I really can't, and that makes me sad.

Faith and flags won this election. But I haven't lost my belief in another f-word -- facts. They're bound to come back into fashion sooner or later.

As an author of fiction, I've gotten into the heads of a lot of characters. I've used that as an exercise in real life, to understand the motivations of real people too. I do pretty well, generally. But I can't understand the average Bush voter, i just can't. I've been criticized, told I shouldn't dismiss the other point of view, told that the losers of arguments always discredit their opponents by saying they're ignorant, arrogant, or stupid, but... I can't understand them. I've understood all kinds of people whose viewpoints are in actuality pretty repulsive to me, but I can't wrap my heads around 51% of this nation.

Pretty damn sad.

Comments

[dragonlady7.livejournal.com]

I attended a high school that was aggressively a-religious. So I spent my formative years being carefully non-exclusive when discussing matters of religion. It's become such a habit with me, despite the fact that I myself am a practicing Christian, that it jars me when others do not exercise this courtesy. I am "politically correct" by habit, but what I mean by that is that I use language deliberately, say what I mean, don't say "man" when I mean "person", don't say a word without taking its connotations into account, and don't misuse words for the sake of misleading people. (Moral Values my foot-- what the hell does that even mean?)

I agree with the "under God" fellow, by the way-- the words were not original to the pledge, and were added during the Communist scare. His particular case is stupid, but at all times, it is best to err on the side of the non-specific. The Church and the State were meant to be separate, and it is dangerous to combine them, especially when it is not necessary. It's a throwaway line in that pledge. It doesn't add anything. And it alienates people from something that should be a wonderfully unifying thing. Whether his daughter cared or not is immaterial; logically, he's right.

I am firmly of the belief that no religion should ever be forced upon anyone. Any evangelical atheists I knew usually had been forced to attend church and were of the bitter-troublemaker sort. (Yes, I wanted to smack them. But logically, they were right. Well, sometimes.)

As far as debates...
I grew up debating things with my father. He likes to debate, almost for fun. He loves nothing more than a rousing conversation, and if the conversation is failing he will switch over to argue the other side, irrespective of what he believes, simply for the thrill of the debate. There is something almost physically satisfying in the correct deployment of logic, and the subtle intricacies of manoevering that take place in debates.

I love this, and it was a great moment for me when, at about fifteen years of age, I argued the contrary position on gay rights, and got him to admit that, well, yes, the gay rights movement was obnoxious and confrontational, but the underlying issues were valid ones. I have never forgotten how triumphant I felt, knowing that I had managed to get him to consider an argument he hadn't really thought of. And he was proud of me.

It really upsets me that I can't do that with everyone. Though, even growing up, I knew you couldn't always do that. My mom hates it, and won't argue with Dad at all unless she has to. They always disagree in politics, and always go to vote in the knowledge that they're going to cancel one another out. (I can argue freely with Dave, but we agree on just about everything, so it's kind of stupid and a waste of time and rapidly degenerates into, "yes, you don't have to tell me that".)

But I haven't discussed this election with my father. I know he didn't like John Kerry. Given the beliefs I know he holds, he should have disliked Bush as well or more. I don't know how he voted. I'm almost afraid to ask.

[spacellama.livejournal.com]

I had a very similar experience with my dad. He thought I was nuts for a while when I was a kid going through my socialist phase. Now he thinks I'm a nut for backing the legalization of pot. I think he's a nut for holding onto the AFL-CIO with both arms. But it's wild fun to debate with him.

I have the very vivid suspicion that Dad and I voted differently in this election. But I think he's also proud of me for giving a shit.