Politics has always been about us versus them, the privileged trying to manipulate the not so privileged, the common good or what is good for Detroit is good for America and about a sort of false conversation on values. My hope is that there will be people of substance in the conversation. So far – especially on the Republican side – I am disappointed. There seems to be a debate about who can make Guantanamo the biggest baddest torture farm. a debate about certain immigrants (the brown-skinned ones), and a sort of sleight of hand debate about the war. Life issues – well you used to be for, you now are against, oh, you’re really – deep in your heart …… Sorry I’m not buying it from anybody. On the left – the debate is more substantive, but is beginning to get that beat of the drum of party line – becoming louder. There is no music in a drone sound (ie the right) or in just drums (ie the left). My prayer for for a recognition of our longing – to return to the constitution, to begin again the process of civil discourse (people need to be trained in this one) and for both parties to see the huge diversity of thought in this country is not at either end of the spectrum. They are just the loudest and most obnoxious. There has been no conversation on values that matters except perhaps during the Civil Rights era of the 50′s and 60′s. It doesn’t exist no as both sides on abortion have lost their ability to claim a moral highground. It doesn’t exist in our justice system as we watch an Attorney General flout the law and bend it to political gain and we increasingly observe a criminal justice system that does not believe redemption can occur – certainly not for those people. Our criminal justice system is brutal and dehumanizing. There are people who should never leave prison – they are too broken, but must we continue to dehumanize them? Is that what Jesus would have us do?
OK, enough of my run on sentences. Donnie, I already know what you’re going to say – so perhaps you can synthesize your thoughts a bit – that way people will not respond in anger, but in thought.
Doug – was there a moment in time when you recall political discourse as substantive and one that calls us to our better selves instead of our basest, most vindictive self. By the way – over the last few years the phrase “playing to the base” has come into our conversation. Usually it means talking in code language to the basest fears and bigotry that exist. When we break that code, it is always about the poor (they’re lazy and deserve nothing) people of color (you’ll never be able to trust them) or people who are different – gay, artist, philosopher, intellect). We need such people to color our very narrow views and take us to a more generous place. So, let us wish one another godspeed in all political discourse. We will need it.

I am deeply concerned about this coming political season. The intensity of the debate has been amplified by the early emergence of so many active campaigns on both sides of the aisle. I fear that the combination of “debate fatigue” and extremist rhetoric will alienate many people from the process this time around. Which simply means that the extremists among us, those people with narrow political agendas, will gain in power and influence once again. And we will once again be left to bemoan the fact that so many politicians cater to so few people.
May we all be blessed with extra portions of patience and forbearance as this season comes upon us.

Merging politics and religion–whether in the form of electing leaders or blogging on such elections– is not only played out but is starting to become cheap and corny. Hear me out before your blood pressure goes up.
The last few election cycles, both sides have become polarized extremely based on two points: the Florida re-count and the religious agenda where it pertains to our politics. Florida aside, most religious entities and powers-that-be that are within the political realm seek to monopolize power and then force change through the laws they make and the judges they appoint.
All fine and dandy, being that it is legal and our political system. The side that wins, governs basically. But whatever happens to the point I hear mainly from southern white baptists who (ironically and so hilariously) reference Martin Luther King, Jr. in choosing to changing the hearts, minds and souls of people versus having activists judges or bodies of legislatives who don’t act off the will of the people. I am still waiting for conservative judges who don’t act on anything, thus not being “activists”.
The people who live sinful and immoral lives–all of us christian or not–are not affected by spiritual or legal laws whatsoever. Dare I say see Ted Haggard or Duke Cunningham or Jesse Jackson of whomever you want to list. It truly relies upon the real physical work one does versus the lazy, one fell swoop with a pen, I am in control and have all the power political way of doing. But that would actually mean doing real work and leading with the true nature of one’s heart and soul….a scary proposition for most Christians in my opinion.
So I ask Mr. Kuo why choose to merge religion and politics in your writing? What is new? What is significant? What is meaningful? And how would it directly impact what is the core of anyone’s heart and soul? I myself believe in and follow the teachings of Jesus and other “religious” prophets but as a non-christian. I come to your blog periodically to read mostly what people post because I like the challenge of hearing something that will in 100% of the cases be the opposite of my opinion (note: that is the secret to Fox News success; Dems watch for a debate, GOP watch for affirmation and lack of a debate, but I could be wrong). So by having that courage, more or less, and not settling for the status quo, I feel personally (again, could be wrong) that in some cases growth happens personally within. I don’t know……I just feel another blog about WWJD in politics and pandering to the majority would have little or no effect. After all, what would have happened if Jesus followed the same path as everyone else?

CORRECTION: I am obviously dyslexic and don’t proof read anything. I apologize and would like to correct a couple of things.
A)Where I said a scary proposition for Christians…well I meant to say for everyone, Christians, atheists and everyone in between.
B)People are affected by spiritual and legal laws of which guide our daily lives. I was trying to say that when one breaks those laws that those laws didn’t work….the overall point was to say that making a law or writing about it is cheap, rather making spiritual or legal connections with one another is greater and more ideal.
Again, I apologize for my dyslexia and impatience.

David, I’m looking forward to that. It’s a wonderful service to offer the world faith-based conversation about politics without the manichean discussion of who we’re called to vote for.
Thinker, I think so, but it might be the naivety of youth. To be honest, I am fairly comfortable with sarcasm, slurs, slander and sedition (as should be obvious by now) but underneath it all, I think there are useful and urgent discussion about liberty, morality and the purpose and efficiency of government that ought to be at least as important as the delusions of the voters. I’d like to see some amount of energy spent on substantive dialog. The candidates are unlikely to do that until the people do. That’s why I’m trying to get the D-word, the R-word, the L-word and the C-word out of my vocabulary.

OK Doug – good words to eliminate. I’ll also give it try.
“manichean discussion” – now I’m impressed.

Thinker, on that note (manicheism, not impressing anybody) it’s one of the amusing ironies of history. Dr. Justo. Gonzalez’ History of Christianity was probably my favorite of the books I read in college. I was fascinated by the chapters discussing gnosticism and manichism, with which the early church contended, flirted and then declared heretical. What fascinated me was this: here was this conflict that was finally won by one side more than a millenium and a half ago, the descendants of the winning side often sound like they belong to the side so long ago and ultimately defeated. Curiouser and curiouser (Win 1:12)