[wt-hell?!]

I'd like to play some volleyball with you! (You sound oddly like a roommate of mine from a few years ago)

My friend went to a UU church for awhile. He seemed to enjoy it a lot. From what I heard they have all kinds of people searching for a place to be spiritual aside from the dogma of religion.

[Vigile]

Snakefoot, on 09 February 2010 - 03:21 PM, said:

Vigile, on 09 February 2010 - 02:32 PM, said:

Vomit Comet, on 09 February 2010 - 01:06 PM, said:

Well, there was the whole Civil War thing, so it's nothing new. However, it's been said that since Reagan it's become more pronounced than ever. In the 1960s there were deep rifts over "American values" and culture and whatnot, but the difference was that in the 1960s we still had that robust post-war American economy. The game changed in the mid 1970s, and then came Reagan. Polarization is a way of life now, thanks to Reagan and all who came after him, and as a backdrop we have our fragmented outsourced post-industrial perpetual-decline disappearing-middle speculative risk economy.

Well, aside from the civil war. In my lifetime I don't believe it has ever been so pronounced. Even during the Reagan years I don't recall people being so easily set off over sound bytes and inuendos. It's gotten much worse since Obama was elected I think; much, much worse as far as I can tell viewing things from over here.

I think it is because people are more plugged into politics, have unprecedented access (via the internet), and there are more outlets via radio and TV (which are integrated via the internet). People are more aware of what is going on (How dare those assholes!), more attuned to the talking points (I know what that means!), and can more easily assert their positions on issues (I'll give those liberals/conservatives what for on this discussion board!).

It's more than that. It's a cultural change. If it were just access to more info then it would be taking place in other countries as well. As far as I can tell this is not the case. Seems to me yellow journalism is at least partially to blame.

[Vomit Comet]

Snakefoot, on 09 February 2010 - 01:18 PM, said:

It always astonishes me that no matter what comes up, somebody always finds a way to blame Reagan or Bush. Neither man created "polarization," they were simply representatives of one faction. Why doesn't anyone ever blame Clinton, Carter, or even Ted Kennedy, the representatives of another faction?

Reagan pioneered the current brand of it, that's for sure. He was truly a brilliant politician, in a way that makes even Rove and Cheney look like amateurs. "Morning in America" and whatnot, and a great big shot across the bow of those 70s Carter wimps. Sure, Ted and the others wrote the response, but Reagan wrote the book.

Well, actually, the greatest polarizer of all was Richard Nixon. He wrote the book on counterrevolution. He converted the South to Republicanism in large part by slickly, slyly pandering to post-Civil Rights resentment, he gave a great big shot in the arm to dormant 1950s law n' order hard-asses, he ended the wartime draft in part to kill the protest movement and counterculture as it had been known, and he convinced Joe Hardhat that it was a good idea to beat the shit out of hippies and college kids.

Still, while Nixon was cunning, he lacked charisma. Reagan was the Hollywood President who rode in on a horse wearing a white hat to save the day like John Wayne. As a result, elections have ever since been about image first and substance second, and you have to have a squadron of Madison Avenue types in your corner to win. For example, if it weren't for Reagan we wouldn't have heard the term "hockey mom" batted around like it actually meant a goddamned thing, nor would we have been flooded with so many staged photos of Obama looking as if he were about to be beatified ante-mortem.

This post has been edited by Vomit Comet: 10 February 2010 - 03:11 AM

[Vomit Comet]

Snakefoot, on 09 February 2010 - 03:21 PM, said:

I think it is because people are more plugged into politics, have unprecedented access (via the internet), and there are more outlets via radio and TV (which are integrated via the internet). People are more aware of what is going on (How dare those assholes!), more attuned to the talking points (I know what that means!), and can more easily assert their positions on issues (I'll give those liberals/conservatives what for on this discussion board!).

At the same time, the news ain't what it used to be, with FCC deregulation and repeal of the Fairness Doctrine back in 1987. The various internet sites and cable news networks are "echo chambers" where people's views are reinforced rather than challenged or expanded, and every niche (we're more fragmented than ever) must be catered to exactly how they want to be catered to, and they must also be entertained (hence the rise of blowhards on cable TV). That's why I mourn the death of newspapers. In a newspaper you're liable to read an editorial that will piss you off in a bad way. But at least you'd come across it, and in a newspaper you were paying to read, so there was less incentive to just blow past it like on an internet forum.

Not only that, but accountants and finance guys took over news departments from actual journalists. (In Japan and Germany, automotive engineers run car companies. In America, accountants, lawyers, and Wall Street guys do. There but for the grace of God goeth GM.) Television news used to be a "loss leader"; it was viewed as a public service rather than a money-maker. That changed in the deregulatory frenzy of 1987. And now we mostly get infotainment schlock. And yes, it's just as shitty when it comes from the left, although the influence of Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp--who turned several of Britain's greatest national newspapers into screeching tabloids, and who has given us Fox News, who aren't allowed to call themselves "news" in Canada--is indelible.

There's also unprecedented concentration of ownership since 1987. Economists define an "oligopoly" as where 5 companies or less control 50% of a market. 5 companies control 70 to 80% of the television, movies, and music that Americans consume. What of the internet? Google and Apple are on the rise, and will one day become large conglomerates in their own right. Watch as they start cutting deals with Viacom, NewsCorp, etc., and we start to see interlocking directorates (a practice illegal in almost every other industrialized nation) where it's difficult to tell where one firm begins and the next firm ends. 'tis only a matter of time.

Yeah, I know that's too idyllic of a view of the past, but there's definitely been some serious structural changes that have certain consequences, and it's by-and-large the result of the deregulation of the media that occurred during the Reagan years.

[insanezenmistress]

would i be your friend?

I dont try to make enemies. But friends are something else, people one can be themselves with. People who try to understand a supoort you, and people who share your pains, celebrate their highs and and encourage thru the lows.

If you think about this, my friend's religion plays an extreemly small part of the liveing with the really real person. I think that someone who has internalised the best of their faith, and shunned indoctrination are sincere in their life. And that you cannot stand the "evil" around you means you have integrity.

Integrity, and you are Diserning, and conscientious. Positive traits, wether they belong to a muslam or a lax catholic.

That you are a seeker of the real and the true means i have no objection to you lovin up on jesus when you are alone, or even including the things he teaches in our conversation. How you experience your god is part of who you currently are, and if the rest is good, i am sure your interpretations of holyness are pretty decent also.

but then you might be a homicdal rubberband hummping beastie.... also, less than the whole percentage of the total you...but a possible friendship deal breaker......with the homicidal.


izm

[JustinBaker]

I might! I suck at volleyball though. I'm generally very respectful of other's religions and don't mind the difference there. Sounds like you aren't the pushy type, so I'd say there is a chance we might be friends.

[Multifarious Bird Lady]

dagnarus, on 09 February 2010 - 08:55 PM, said:

Have you tried the unitarian universalists? From what little I've heard of them they are all about personal private growth with God, and they believe everyone is going to heaven.

A good number of UUs don't believe in God (or at least not the Christian God), and not all believe in heaven, either. It varies pretty widely.

These are the principles of UU churches, for those interested.

[francotiradora]

southjerseygirl36, on 09 February 2010 - 03:10 AM, said:

Catholics, most of them, do not judge nonbelievers to hell

To say the least, I beg to differ.

To be honest, yes, I would back away from a potential friend if I found out that she was in any way associated with the Catholic Church, even in a pick-and-choose, freelance sort of way. In fact, I would run the other way.

I intend no offense and nothing personal by this post; it is merely the opinion for which the thread asked.

[lunaticheathen]

I agree with the repeated sentiment that a UU church would be a far better fit than sitting in a catholic one. Though I have to admit to taking breathers sitting in St Louis here in NOLA when out and about in the Quarter. It's pretty, and usually has pretty chants being played for the tourists. Never been to a service there though. I did go to a couple of UU events though, even taught "sunday school" to the kids, a lesson in tarot. So they're VERY laid back, and not into pushy at all.
Anyway, belief isn't much a part in how I choose friends: however, if someone is uptight and weird about their religion, they usually don't last long around me! I've had christians and muslims run from me for just...being me. It depends on the person.

[Scorpion]

One of my best friends os a church youth group leader. Go figure. He doesn't seem to be deep into his faith though. Still, our mutual love of star wars, Queen, assorted crazyness and wimenz keeps our friendship tight!

[Non-Redneck]

I would be wary of you for a while until I could figure out how deep you were into it. And even then I would be watching for fundie signs. If you weren't a whacko, I could overlook it.

While I detest religion, especially Christianity, I am also realistic. Many people go to church, as long as they don't bother me with that religious BS, I can hang around them and do stuff with them if we have a common interest. However, I will never be able to be a close friend with any Christian, because in the back of my mind, I am always wary of them and their religion.

[southjerseygirl36]

francotiradora, on 20 February 2010 - 01:47 AM, said:

southjerseygirl36, on 09 February 2010 - 03:10 AM, said:

Catholics, most of them, do not judge nonbelievers to hell

To say the least, I beg to differ.

To be honest, yes, I would back away from a potential friend if I found out that she was in any way associated with the Catholic Church, even in a pick-and-choose, freelance sort of way. In fact, I would run the other way.I intend no offense and nothing personal by this post; it is merely the opinion for which the thread asked.

Are they really like that? I guess that I don't know what I am getting into. There seems to be no place in this world that I can go to enjoy common sense views about God.

[Shyone]

southjerseygirl36, on 24 February 2010 - 11:28 PM, said:

francotiradora, on 20 February 2010 - 01:47 AM, said:

southjerseygirl36, on 09 February 2010 - 03:10 AM, said:

Catholics, most of them, do not judge nonbelievers to hell

To say the least, I beg to differ.

To be honest, yes, I would back away from a potential friend if I found out that she was in any way associated with the Catholic Church, even in a pick-and-choose, freelance sort of way. In fact, I would run the other way.I intend no offense and nothing personal by this post; it is merely the opinion for which the thread asked.

Are they really like that? I guess that I don't know what I am getting into. There seems to be no place in this world that I can go to enjoy common sense views about God.

For believers of all stripes that have problems with church dogma like that, the Unitarian Universalists are probably the answer. There is no dogma.

But, like a hat, you have to try it on for size and see if it is comfortable.

[southjerseygirl36]

Thank you everyone for your responses. I just believe in God. I do not like what Christianity is. I don't think we can know if we are saved, nor should judge others, and we should be able to read things to help ourselves and keep our money and not tithe. I dont' know what happened to the common sense and love and hope of Jesus in Christianity. I just don't.

[Vixentrox]

southjerseygirl36, on 26 February 2010 - 12:05 AM, said:

Thank you everyone for your responses. I just believe in God. I do not like what Christianity is. I don't think we can know if we are saved, nor should judge others, and we should be able to read things to help ourselves and keep our money and not tithe. I dont' know what happened to the common sense and love and hope of Jesus in Christianity. I just don't.

The Bible......

[Vigile]

Vomit Comet, on 10 February 2010 - 03:07 AM, said:

At the same time, the news ain't what it used to be, with FCC deregulation and repeal of the Fairness Doctrine back in 1987. The various internet sites and cable news networks are "echo chambers" where people's views are reinforced rather than challenged or expanded, and every niche (we're more fragmented than ever) must be catered to exactly how they want to be catered to, and they must also be entertained (hence the rise of blowhards on cable TV). That's why I mourn the death of newspapers. In a newspaper you're liable to read an editorial that will piss you off in a bad way. But at least you'd come across it, and in a newspaper you were paying to read, so there was less incentive to just blow past it like on an internet forum.

Great post VC. And I think this is one of the best explanations of the current polarized phenomena that has been rolling over the nation.

Quote

Not only that, but accountants and finance guys took over news departments from actual journalists. (In Japan and Germany, automotive engineers run car companies. In America, accountants, lawyers, and Wall Street guys do.

Right, corporate fascism is firmly entrenched. Ever seen the 1970s film The Network? It's about the old newsmen being rolled over by corporate execs out to make a buck. We can't force the press to just tell the news, but the old newsmen actually had journalistic principles to guide them. Principles have been thrown out the window for the bottom line.

Quote

There's also unprecedented concentration of ownership since 1987. Economists define an "oligopoly" as where 5 companies or less control 50% of a market

Right. This is one of the major issues that gets overlooked by Reagan defenders (that, and his hideous Central/S America meddling). Mark Ames did a fine job of itemizing the damage done to the middle class via his influence on corporate structure in his book Going Postal.

[dagnarus]

southjerseygirl36, on 26 February 2010 - 12:05 AM, said:

Thank you everyone for your responses. I just believe in God. I do not like what Christianity is. I don't think we can know if we are saved, nor should judge others, and we should be able to read things to help ourselves and keep our money and not tithe. I dont' know what happened to the common sense and love and hope of Jesus in Christianity. I just don't.

Have you actually read the bible? Failing that, Have you actually read the gospels?