I’ve always kept myself on the periphery of political conversations — I am strong and full with “emotion-based” opinion, but find that in order to argue/heatedly discuss the topics I’d like to, I lack cold, hard, supportable facts. And I think that when fact isn’t at least 51% of the argument, the word “hysteric” can be used freely and usually supported…so I shy away.
But these questions keep coming up for me. If I’m so timid to throw myself into these conversations, how can a presidential candidate’s opinion — and I stress the word opinion — about religious- or emotion-based issues be part of their platform?
And is there really a separation of church and state? And I really mean state-by-state. Living in cities like NY or SF or LA, I think there is a pull to forget that a lot of this country, the United States of America, do not have the same beliefs, thoughts, and ideas that I/we do. And what “god” (and I mean this word to be all-inclusive) says is, in the end, the “word.” But what is that word? And if one candidate believes that he has that one word and speaks it louder and with more conviction than another, what will that mean for the rest of that rich lexicon?
This, I know, is an emotion based entry. But it’s what I’ve been thinking about quite a bit. Would love to hear your thoughts…
The word is!
http://goodtimepolitics.com/2008/06/15/obama-still-wet-behind-the-ears/