by Erika Helene Etminan, Hamilton
The polarization between liberal and conservative can be observed not only in the USA, but everywhere in the world: in cultural development as a whole and even in the various religions. Humanity is divided!
The liberal forces are pulling in the general direction of absolute individual freedom, while the conservative forces are standing on the brakes to save the tradition and the conventional values. Where the conservatives want to cast their ideas and values in ironclad, often lifeless norms and regulations, the liberals absolutize individual freedom and take it away from its responsibilities. Both fronts act with a dogmatic claim to absoluteness. Now, during the election campaign, the tone of the discussions is becoming increasingly sharp. The mood has become so heated in the media that many people see this polarization as their own personal war. Points of view have turned into huge castles with thick walls, which have now become veritable fortresses – without windows, but with loopholes. In keeping with today’s fake culture, bullets of insult and denunciation are used in battle. The gun powder consists a lot of aggression and the bombs are working by the attempt or accusation of electoral fraud.
Unfortunately, these bullets and bombs do not only hit the opponent’s supporters. They hit democracy itself, because they mercilessly destroy its substance: cooperation, fairness, tolerance, and nobleness. The playing field of democracy has thus become a battlefield on which everyone will lose. A declining level of communication and behavior can be observed, both among some representatives and among some
voters. However, phenomena such as separation and polarization are aspects that do not come from God, they come from our egos. Our egos need a firm standpoint in order to feel secure in their own castle, that
is normal. But it becomes difficult when it derives its security from the conviction that it is absolutely right. No matter which side of the polarization, egos want to be right. This increasingly gives the impression that this election campaign is bringing out the worst in people that they are apparently capable of. What was once a democracy has degenerated into a tragedy; it seems to have reached its ignominious end. But what comes next? Where is the exit from this disgraceful spectacle?
Personally, I hope that democracy has not yet reached its end, because there is still a way out. Polarization only divides people who allow themselves to be polarized. It is time for us – individually and as a society – to regain the high level that is essential for a functioning democracy. The development of personal integrity and a truly lived spirituality could help us to do this. Then, in the middle of the playing field, in the midst of the toughest disputes between the opposing parties, we can grow and develop – if we remain ethical. In doing so, we do not develop to the left or right, not in the direction of liberal or orthodox, but upwards. The higher levels as a person are only achievable if we do not focus on power, money and career, but on real development. Whether with or without religion, development has something to do, above all, with ethics. And whether liberal or conservative, we should remain ethical in order to keep ourselves and the playing field clean. “Love your enemies” is probably not yet possible for most of us, but we can honor our enemies and treat them with respect. Democracy will thank us for it!
WMA says
Holy roots? Your opinion only. I do not share that view.
Mike Mercer says
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
-Patrick Henry-
Plenty more quotes from other founders, but I hope you get the general idea.
WMA says
Mike,
Please post a few of the pro religion passages from the US Constitution. I am happy to wait. Thanks in advance.
Roger Mitchell says
“Whether with or without religion, development has something to do, above all, with ethics.”
Religion is a system of belief. Everyone has one, whether they admit it or not. It is impossible to live without it. You can deny that you are religious until you are blue in the face, but you cannot live without a belief structure of some sort. Religion, in other words.
It is not a question of “ethics vs. no ethics”, but one of which ethics, whose ethics shall rule. Say what you want, but everyone has a system of ethics, which is nothing more than the moral (immoral?) structure which guides and controls their life. Inevitably, this rises out of the religious beliefs one has. For instance, if you believe that humanity is the result of impartial evolution and that we are basically only a “higher form” of animal, then your ethical perspective will be different than that of someone who is a devout believer in creation by a superior being, God, Who loves and cares for His handiwork and expects it to run according to the standards laid down.
What ethics do you propose we follow? “Love your neighbor” is not a universal mandate, but one which sprang out of Christianity. As such, those who vociferously deny and refuse to acknowledge the Christian faith have no compulsion to “love their neighbors”. If they are evolutionists, they are probably more interested in “screwing their neighbor” as it might benefit them and their belief that only the strong survive. Loving one’s neighbor does not fit well with anyone whose religion and ethic is looking out for #1.
Yet, knowing this, we still react vigorously to any suggestion that the Christian ethic is superior to any other ethic or moral framework and attempt to drive out the possibility that all of us are subject, in some fashion, to it. We want to be God, we want to be recognized as God, and we cannot tolerate anything which holds a candle to the lie that we are God. As a consequence, ethical standards have devolved into a morass in which every person’s “ethic” is just as important as any other. We have decided that there is no standard which rises above the others and we are paying the price for it.
Mike Mercer says
I respect your attempt to untangle this political mess we have grown into but we are not a democracy and this is not a disgraceful spectacle just an election year. The absoluteness you refer to we call “inalienable” as agreed to in our Constitution.
Those of us who believe in an intelligent design have another absolute we hold to which requires a sacrifice many decline to accept; this is the divide a free people must admit to.
In matters of authority the believer acknowledges the distinction between body and soul but knows we cannot separate them. Not seeing this connection is to deny any culpability for your actions. When this nation was first given life by the people, spirituality meant a life oriented towards the Holy Spirit, an absolute. Modern spirituality tends to refer to a subjective experience which is by definition divisive. As such, we have temporarily misplaced our roots so polarized is a yes, at war is a no.