How do we promote unity among differing philosophies?

[Liz Ratcliff]

Joe's idea and a good one... Looking for common ground... Do you have any ideas on ways we can build a bridge and come together for the common good? with a focus on health care? or the economy? or climate change/pollution? or our standing in the world? or war/ foreign policy? or humanitarian causes?

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

There will always be contentious issues in society, and the human mind is such that we tend to a) vociferously defend whatever side of the argument we long ago decided we believed in, and b) fail to seek out or accept as valid any evidence for the other side of the argument. In a word, we are stubborn.

Calls for "unity" generally mean, "agree with me or get out," unfortunately. I personally think that civility and open discussion ("free speech") are more important than everyone attempting to find unity where there is none. Political parties struggle with this every year when nominating their candidate for office. Not everyone is going to be happy with the final choice, but there's a lot of social pressure to accept the final choice and support him/her as if (s)he were your first choice.

Coherent discussion of the issues is difficult, because we are overwhelmed with conflicting information from thousands of sources of varying credibility and depth. TV news is generally shallow. Newspapers and newsmagazines are better in that regard but subject to the editorial bias of the newsroom, etc. Making matters worse is our dismal education system, which teaches children how to perform in a classroom but not real life. We have a nation of people who cannot think for themselves and refuse to read, study, and learn once they get out of school.

I think the internet is helping, since information is much less easily controlled by meddling governments, information producers, and media gatekeepers. The most important tool for learning, I think, is the ability of people to comment on news items, providing a much more diverse mix of viewpoints than the author of the article could ever produce. It is in this community-provided commentary that I do the most learning and discover new information.

[Liz Ratcliff]

There will always be contentious issues in society, and the human mind is such that we tend to a) vociferously defend whatever side of the argument we long ago decided we believed in, and b) fail to seek out or accept as valid any evidence for the other side of the argument. In a word, we are stubborn.

Calls for "unity" generally mean, "agree with me or get out," unfortunately. I personally think that civility and open discussion ("free speech") are more important than everyone attempting to find unity where there is none. Political parties struggle with this every year when nominating their candidate for office. Not everyone is going to be happy with the final choice, but there's a lot of social pressure to accept the final choice and support him/her as if (s)he were your first choice.

Coherent discussion of the issues is difficult, because we are overwhelmed with conflicting information from thousands of sources of varying credibility and depth. TV news is generally shallow. Newspapers and newsmagazines are better in that regard but subject to the editorial bias of the newsroom, etc. Making matters worse is our dismal education system, which teaches children how to perform in a classroom but not real life. We have a nation of people who cannot think for themselves and refuse to read, study, and learn once they get out of school.

I think the internet is helping, since information is much less easily controlled by meddling governments, information producers, and media gatekeepers. The most important tool for learning, I think, is the ability of people to comment on news items, providing a much more diverse mix of viewpoints than the author of the article could ever produce. It is in this community-provided commentary that I do the most learning and discover new information.

I would agree that open discussions are necessary and the first step to find common ground. But progress is rarely made without compromise... Without unity, we will divide. Without some common ground, we pave the way for revolution. I think you underestimate the importance and power of unity. I do agree that it isn't easy or quick, but open civil discussion can find common ground.

[Bob Jentges]

There will always be contentious issues in society, and the human mind is such that we tend to a) vociferously defend whatever side of the argument we long ago decided we believed in, and b) fail to seek out or accept as valid any evidence for the other side of the argument. In a word, we are stubborn.

Calls for "unity" generally mean, "agree with me or get out," unfortunately. I personally think that civility and open discussion ("free speech") are more important than everyone attempting to find unity where there is none. Political parties struggle with this every year when nominating their candidate for office. Not everyone is going to be happy with the final choice, but there's a lot of social pressure to accept the final choice and support him/her as if (s)he were your first choice.

Coherent discussion of the issues is difficult, because we are overwhelmed with conflicting information from thousands of sources of varying credibility and depth. TV news is generally shallow. Newspapers and newsmagazines are better in that regard but subject to the editorial bias of the newsroom, etc. Making matters worse is our dismal education system, which teaches children how to perform in a classroom but not real life. We have a nation of people who cannot think for themselves and refuse to read, study, and learn once they get out of school.

I think the internet is helping, since information is much less easily controlled by meddling governments, information producers, and media gatekeepers. The most important tool for learning, I think, is the ability of people to comment on news items, providing a much more diverse mix of viewpoints than the author of the article could ever produce. It is in this community-provided commentary that I do the most learning and discover new information.

I pretty much agree with you Jonathon. Bipartisanship has become an end in an of itself, often to promote the advancement of politicians at the detriment of we the people. Some seem to think that no matter how bad an idea might be (and most ideas are bad ideas) it is OK if the political parties reach "common ground" by the majority party getting votes from a few members of the minority party and passing the bill into law. I think that more often than not the result of such bipartisanship has probably been more disasterous than it has been constructive for we the people. Some how we the people need to elect people to represent us that will do what is right for we the people, regardless of politics.

[Liz Ratcliff]

I pretty much agree with you Jonathon. Bipartisanship has become an end in an of itself, often to promote the advancement of politicians at the detriment of we the people. Some seem to think that no matter how bad an idea might be (and most ideas are bad ideas) it is OK if the political parties reach "common ground" by the majority party getting votes from a few members of the minority party and passing the bill into law. I think that more often than not the result of such bipartisanship has probably been more disasterous than it has been constructive for we the people. Some how we the people need to elect people to represent us that will do what is right for we the people, regardless of politics.

The glass is half empty? I am talking about we the people... not politicians. You sound defeated. Sometimes thoughts and feelings manifest into destiny - cheer up and reach out and things will get better!

[Ellen Mrja]

Hi, all.

Maybe we're all just too spoiled to remember how to work for the common good and not for Me-More-Now. Could we even get through one hour without using the word "I"?

Perhaps that should be a challenge to myself. It all starts from within.

[Bob Jentges]

The glass is half empty? I am talking about we the people... not politicians. You sound defeated. Sometimes thoughts and feelings manifest into destiny - cheer up and reach out and things will get better!

I am not "defeated", but rather optomistic that when a sufficient number of we the people realize what is happening we will elect principled, rather than political (whether Democrat or Republican) people to represent us. What goes around comes around; it's just a matter of time. In the meantime we can live in a cumbaya i.e. sweet dreams setting if we so choose.

[Dan Conner]

There will always be contentious issues in society, and the human mind is such that we tend to a) vociferously defend whatever side of the argument we long ago decided we believed in, and b) fail to seek out or accept as valid any evidence for the other side of the argument. In a word, we are stubborn.

Calls for "unity" generally mean, "agree with me or get out," unfortunately. I personally think that civility and open discussion ("free speech") are more important than everyone attempting to find unity where there is none. Political parties struggle with this every year when nominating their candidate for office. Not everyone is going to be happy with the final choice, but there's a lot of social pressure to accept the final choice and support him/her as if (s)he were your first choice.

Coherent discussion of the issues is difficult, because we are overwhelmed with conflicting information from thousands of sources of varying credibility and depth. TV news is generally shallow. Newspapers and newsmagazines are better in that regard but subject to the editorial bias of the newsroom, etc. Making matters worse is our dismal education system, which teaches children how to perform in a classroom but not real life. We have a nation of people who cannot think for themselves and refuse to read, study, and learn once they get out of school.

I think the internet is helping, since information is much less easily controlled by meddling governments, information producers, and media gatekeepers. The most important tool for learning, I think, is the ability of people to comment on news items, providing a much more diverse mix of viewpoints than the author of the article could ever produce. It is in this community-provided commentary that I do the most learning and discover new information.

I somewhat agree with you on this issue. However, I think it is we the people that need to change. For one, we need to become more educated. However, that means spending more for quality education. Sometimes I think we are in the process of "dumbing down" America.

Two, I hink we need to listen to news differently. Today, too much of the media has changed from reporting news and the facts, to selling a point of view. There are too many paid "experts" trying to sell a point of view. I think people need to listen more for the facts of situation than the "expert" interpretation of those facts. Now, every news event seems to be followed by a panel of "experts" commenting about what the event means. Also, these "experts" generally just seem to be journalists from another venue. I guess what I'm saying is that we have to get better at sifting out the facts from the commentary. The media seems more bent on making the news instead of just reporting it.

I do think we have to become better at compromise. We certaily manage to do that in critical times. We need to learn to do that in other than critical times. The political process is slow and happens in small steps, generally not in enormous and sweeping steps. We will never be completely satisfied, but are we moving in the right direction? Also, I think we need to remain focused on helping each other, not on hindering each other.

There is a reason for the separation of church and state. Religion introduces too much emotion into a process that needs to remain logical. Also, I believe the purpose of religion was to guide us individually in our quest for religiosity, not force everyone to accept a one-size-fits-all mentality in our nation. We are a patchwork of races and religions in our country. Too many of our religions foster intolerance because they all believe they have the only "true" answer. If we are to succeed, we have to foster tolerance for our differences.

I think the internet is wonderful, but I am concerned about the potential for manipulating others. We have to remain skeptical about internet websites that seem to motivate us to act based on a fallacious point of view.

[Liz Ratcliff]

I somewhat agree with you on this issue. However, I think it is we the people that need to change. For one, we need to become more educated. However, that means spending more for quality education. Sometimes I think we are in the process of "dumbing down" America.

Two, I hink we need to listen to news differently. Today, too much of the media has changed from reporting news and the facts, to selling a point of view. There are too many paid "experts" trying to sell a point of view. I think people need to listen more for the facts of situation than the "expert" interpretation of those facts. Now, every news event seems to be followed by a panel of "experts" commenting about what the event means. Also, these "experts" generally just seem to be journalists from another venue. I guess what I'm saying is that we have to get better at sifting out the facts from the commentary. The media seems more bent on making the news instead of just reporting it.

I do think we have to become better at compromise. We certaily manage to do that in critical times. We need to learn to do that in other than critical times. The political process is slow and happens in small steps, generally not in enormous and sweeping steps. We will never be completely satisfied, but are we moving in the right direction? Also, I think we need to remain focused on helping each other, not on hindering each other.

There is a reason for the separation of church and state. Religion introduces too much emotion into a process that needs to remain logical. Also, I believe the purpose of religion was to guide us individually in our quest for religiosity, not force everyone to accept a one-size-fits-all mentality in our nation. We are a patchwork of races and religions in our country. Too many of our religions foster intolerance because they all believe they have the only "true" answer. If we are to succeed, we have to foster tolerance for our differences.

I think the internet is wonderful, but I am concerned about the potential for manipulating others. We have to remain skeptical about internet websites that seem to motivate us to act based on a fallacious point of view.

Well put! Agreed!

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Good discussion. This may surprise some of you coming from a journalist who is supposed to be jaded and skeptical if not cynical. I am often amazed at how many things our elected political leaders do get done through compromise.
I've watched the process from a front row seat for almost 20 years. I saw business and labor in Minnesota compromise on workers compensation and taxes that many agreed were too high in Minnesota. That was back in the early 90s. It was a problem that was very divisive for at least 10 years before that compromise plan.
I saw a "tri-partisan" government in Minnesota remove a lot of school funding from local property taxes, a $900 million job to have the state take over to create what many believed was a better way to fund schools. (unfortunately, it's gone backwards a bit).

I could go on. So, I think, in many cases, our system of compromise works amazingly well, better at the state and local levels, and probably a bit worse at the national level.

When you ask people involved how these compromises come about, they usually point to general "goals" the two sides agree on first. Many of us have many goals in common for our society. We just differ on how to get there. Compromise often involves adopting SOME of each sides ideas on how to get there.

[Ben Willaert]

I somewhat agree with you on this issue. However, I think it is we the people that need to change. For one, we need to become more educated. However, that means spending more for quality education. Sometimes I think we are in the process of "dumbing down" America.

Two, I hink we need to listen to news differently. Today, too much of the media has changed from reporting news and the facts, to selling a point of view. There are too many paid "experts" trying to sell a point of view. I think people need to listen more for the facts of situation than the "expert" interpretation of those facts. Now, every news event seems to be followed by a panel of "experts" commenting about what the event means. Also, these "experts" generally just seem to be journalists from another venue. I guess what I'm saying is that we have to get better at sifting out the facts from the commentary. The media seems more bent on making the news instead of just reporting it.

I do think we have to become better at compromise. We certaily manage to do that in critical times. We need to learn to do that in other than critical times. The political process is slow and happens in small steps, generally not in enormous and sweeping steps. We will never be completely satisfied, but are we moving in the right direction? Also, I think we need to remain focused on helping each other, not on hindering each other.

There is a reason for the separation of church and state. Religion introduces too much emotion into a process that needs to remain logical. Also, I believe the purpose of religion was to guide us individually in our quest for religiosity, not force everyone to accept a one-size-fits-all mentality in our nation. We are a patchwork of races and religions in our country. Too many of our religions foster intolerance because they all believe they have the only "true" answer. If we are to succeed, we have to foster tolerance for our differences.

I think the internet is wonderful, but I am concerned about the potential for manipulating others. We have to remain skeptical about internet websites that seem to motivate us to act based on a fallacious point of view.

I too agree with this post. That is the very point I was trying to make awhile back about Michael Moore on a different thread. The media has become so focused on sensationalism and creating its own news that it has lost integrity. There is an excellent book on the media by Drew Curtis called: “Its not news, its Fark”, which is based on his observations of the news media from the stories submitted to his website Fark.com.

[Dan Conner]

I too agree with this post. That is the very point I was trying to make awhile back about Michael Moore on a different thread. The media has become so focused on sensationalism and creating its own news that it has lost integrity. There is an excellent book on the media by Drew Curtis called: “Its not news, its Fark”, which is based on his observations of the news media from the stories submitted to his website Fark.com.
Ben, thanks for your positive comments. One point I would like to mention about Michael Moore, is that he has never foisted himself as the "media". He films documentaries and make public commentary, but only as a citizen, like the rest of us. It is the media that focuses on his answers because of his celebrity. I just happen to agree with much he says.

I feel the news has even become more nefarious than simply focusing on sensationalism. I think key people in our country have concentrated on buying up media outlets in order to propagandize the rest of us. Sometiimes, I think these media moguls want us all to become mere "dittoheads", unable to hold independent thought. I truly admire people who search for the truth, sometimes at great personal risk to themselves.

[Bob Jentges]

This thread has been inactive for quite some time. If you take time to read Ms. Charen's "Polarization May Be The Only Answer" it may put a different light on the commonly held idea that compromise is always best, and that the answer is not always found in the middle.;)

http://article.nationalreview.com/434323/polarization-may-be-our-best-hope/mona-charen

[Chad Sietsema]

Dan Conner wrote:
There is a reason for the separation of church and state. Religion introduces too much emotion into a process that needs to remain logical. Also, I believe the purpose of religion was to guide us individually in our quest for religiosity, not force everyone to accept a one-size-fits-all mentality in our nation. We are a patchwork of races and religions in our country. Too many of our religions foster intolerance because they all believe they have the only "true" answer. If we are to succeed, we have to foster tolerance for our differences.

Just today, the following news item appears msnbc's website, and I find it a bit disturbing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37220562/ns/us_news-life

Texas wants to change its (and others states') social studies curriculum to "promote patriotism." Nothing wrong with patriotism, and promoting it in school is, in my mind, a good thing. However, according to this article, Texas wants to minimize Thomas Jefferson's influence as a U.S. President because he advocated the separation of church and state. Personally, I'm with Dan. Keeping the business of our government and our freedom to pursue our own religious beliefs separate was/and is a good path to stay upon. Whenever we're tempted to promote patriotism by punching a hole in the wall of separation of church and state... well, aren't we then creating our own whispers of jihad? Isn't that one of the very things we're fighting against in Afghanistan? Like millions of Americans, I'm a Christian. But when my country goes to war, I want our military fighting for our nation and for our freedom to pursue our religious beliefs, but not for Christianity itself. There's a difference. A hurricane starts with a gentle breeze on the coast of West Africa. I'm hoping Texas, and other states, will think twice about flipping this particular fan's switch to "on."

[Bob Jentges]

Dan Conner wrote:
.

Just today, the following news item appears msnbc's website, and I find it a bit disturbing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37220562/ns/us_news-life

...according to this article, Texas wants to minimize Thomas Jefferson's influence as a U.S. President because he advocated the separation of church and state....Keeping the business of our government and our freedom to pursue our own religious beliefs separate was/and is a good path to stay upon.

Interesting and I think a very important topic, Chad!

The first sentance in the MSNBC article perked my interest i.e. "Is Texas on the verge of rewriting history, or just correcting it?" The reason my interest was perked is because I think there has been way to much revisionist history over time, to the point that the average person, as well as public school students, are often confused as to what is actually historical fact.

I do not consider myself a historian, but from some of my past readings about Thomas Jefferson I had the impression he was a person of deep religious faith, as were almost all the founders. That made it difficult for me to accept that Jefferson would have advocated seperation of church and state because he was an athiest or even agnostic, as the article seemed to insinuate. I decided to do some very basic research.

I already knew that the 1st Ammendment dealt only with preventing the establishment of religion by the federal government and did not include the words/phrases "seperation of church and state" and/or "wall of seperation", but now understand those words/phrases are not found in the Declaration of Independence, of which Jefferson was the principal author, or for that matter anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

However, Jefferson is credited with coining those phrases in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association. He was responding to a letter from them expressing concern that their religious freedom was being restricted.

I am including a link that you might find interesting. In that link you can link to a copy of Jeffersons letter to Danbury Baptist Association. The link also contains a sidebar link: "Who was Thomas Jefferson and what did he believe".

http://www.free2pray.info/1seperationchurchstate.html

It seems to me the purpose of 1st Ammendment was to protect the individual and churches from the federal government with respect to freedom of religion, and Jefferson agreed with that.

If whatever is going on in Texas with respect to textbooks involves trying to diminish Thomas Jeffersons true place in history in any fashion, I could not disagree more. I think our students should be taught more about our founders and the Constitution, not less.

[Chad Sietsema]

Gutzon Borglum began his Mount Rushmore project in the early 1920s. When he reached the decision that the images of four U.S. presidents would be carved in to the mountainside, he had a group of 27 or 28 men to select from. As I’m certain that Borglum gave the matter a great deal of thought, that Thomas Jefferson was one of the four who “made the cut” (pun intended);), speaks volumes about President Jefferson (at least it did in the eyes of Mr. Borglum). Perhaps a certain few citizens from the state of Texas would be well served to vacation in western South Dakota this summer, before making any rash decisions about how President Jefferson should be presented to the nation’s children.

Thomas Jefferson, from what I’ve read, believed in God, but his religious beliefs may not have been as conventional as the average person’s. On the one hand, he expresses a healthy respect for and fear of God… “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” On the other, he wanted to encourage people to better understand themselves by refusing to accept things at face value; to question everything, including their religious beliefs… “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” As for pinning down his own precise beliefs, he is credited with having said this… “Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.” Well said.

[Bob Jentges]

Interesting article by James Rosen: The Founding Fathers on Church and State.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/21/the-founding-fathers-on-church-and-state/

Also, if interested, I found the Texas Educational Agency draft standards online at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=3643