Comments about ‘Letter: Public discourse impossible with such divergent world views’

@redshirt
personal responsibility unless you loss an election then its all the democrats fault for not playing fair.

Christian 24-7
Joe Moe
RedShirt

Jesus was inclusive, not exclusive (think immigration reform today)
Jesus spent most of his time with shunned in society the poor, sick, the needy (think 47% today)
Jesus healed the sick, and never little to nothing in return (Think RObamaneycare).
Jesus fed the multitudes, and never asked them for payment (think FoodStamps).
Jesus forgave the adulterers, and thieves (think Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and amnesty).
Jesus expected the 1% to pony up and do more - where much is given, much is expected.
Jesus rebuked the self-righteous and rich Pharisees as phoney hypocrites.

Liberal then,
Liberal now.

A lot of what we believe depends on who we rely on to give us the news. The pressure of group think of our friends and co-workers may unduly influence us.Those who treat others with whom they disagree with contempt is a sign of a desire to be right that overrides the desire to understand others points of view. Do we take time to learn the facts of both sides? When we genuinely seek to understand other we tend to find that their intentions are not as hostile or dark as we may have thought. The truth does not reside in any one particular political party or viewpoint.Narrow-mindedness is common among both liberals and conservatives.

"It may be best to start with the assumption that we're not going to agree, but the other person is a decent human being anyway."

I disagree with the need to make this sort of assumption and it ultimately undermines civic virtue and discourse. It accepts as a truism that we can agree to disagree about matters of importance and compromise our principles in favor of getting along.

This attitude doesn't do any good and prevents real discussion. The reason we "talk at each other without actually understanding each other" is because we believe there is no right or wrong answer and that people with the wrong answers are basically good people. We prefer to stay friends with people who merely disagree with us. There's no real ultimatum of we don't agree and we can not be friends if you don't.

I would argue that disagreements of a political nature are often a product of two differing worldviews. The first view respects others rights, liberty and innate value while the other doesn't. I wonder how many people would stay friends with a Hitler if he said "let's agree to disagree."

Twin Lights,

"First, a recognition that the other person is intelligent and worthy of respect."

Hitler was highly intelligent. He was also a human being who was someone's son, sibling and friend. Should people have respected him? While this is an extreme example the problem with the breakdown in the foundations of society has nothing to do with people not being able to discuss things with respect for others. The problem is there is too much respect and we are in need of less. If you could remain friends with a person whose opinion directly impacts your life negatively than you are without character.

"Third, that we love/like each other and would really like to keep it that way. So we don't go into hyper anger mode the second anyone disagrees about something."

So your friendship and love for someone else comes before what's right? If there isn't any consequences to your relationships when you hold views which harm another you aren't going to listen to them or have any reason to change. At that point a discussion is nothing but an argument where you MIGHT change your views if you choose

Dwayne,

First, apparently Godwin’s Law works.

Second, we were discussing folks with varying political views not affirmed mass murdering psychopaths. Best to keep those two separate.

Third, there is CERTAINLY not “too much respect” in our country.

Fourth, sure there are consequences to my relationships. But not based on whether they vote Democratic or Republican.

Finally I refer you to an excellent talk by Dallin H. Oaks titled Truth and Tolerance. In that talk, he quotes President Hinckley as follows “Each of us is part of a great family, the human family, sons and daughters of God, and therefore brothers and sisters. We must work harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of forbearance, with tolerance one for another regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse.”

Elder Oaks then goes on, in some detail, on how to balance both advocating and standing for truth while maintaining respect for the ideas of others. Note that he draws a firm line reference certain extreme behaviors but political ideas do not appear to make that cut.

" Raising taxes on a portion of Americans will destroy that portion of Americans." Please explain how raising the marginal tax rate 3% on someone who makes over $250,000 a year (3% on income over $250,000) "destroys" that person. I can respect a reasonable position that is different than mine (your opinion about the need for a literal interpretation of the constitution) but hyperbolic nonsense like the above needs to be called out for what it is. My wife and I will probably fall into this category and let me assure you that the extra 3% on everything over 250 won't "destroy" us. In fact it won't have any effect at all.

Redshirt..wasn't Jesus statement about giving to Cesar what is Cesars the result of taxes..which Jesus apparently validated with the statement.

@George

"I am sorry to hear you do not respect yourself but you know you can change the way you interact with the world so that you once again can respect yourself."

English translation: "I know you are but what am I"
Years of graduate school and that is the best you can do?

I would remind you that YOU, not I, are the one who has advocates censorship of therapy that was beneficial to me, but inconvenient to your dogma. YOU, not I, justified the censorship based up blatantly politically motivated "research". Then YOU, not I, have the audacity to claim that you are only censoring and silencing differing viewpoints because you are concerned about my well-being.

I grew up around passive/aggression and reject it in its entirety.
I accept no shame from you.

But thank you for proving my point sometimes patronizing faux-civility is merely "a manipulative front for silencing opposition"

Re:CHS 85

Your response is exactly how the conversations breaks down.

"Would you prefer that these people move away?"

Was there any insinuation in my comments that indicated that this is what I was suggesting?

"Would you prefer that these bases and activities cease to exist in Utah?"

Again..see above.

"Is Utah ready to absorb those jobs and those unemployed people?"

Straw man question based on faulty prior conclusions.

"You have your hand out with "Save Hill AFB" as the battle cry for election after election (even though Hill AFB is not threatened), yet you spit in the very hand that provides the jobs for those who work at the base (and other federal facilities throughout the state). "

Do I?

"Which is it, then? Do you want less federal spending in Utah or not?"

Did I pose that question?

"BTW, the number of federal facilities in Utah (a "taker" state) pales in comparison to a state that is a "giver"..."

Per capita...You are wrong.

You can continue to justify Utah's taking of more than they give all you want, but the fact still remains - Utah is a "taker."

Huh? You missed the point.

To "LDS Liberal" the qualities that you claim are "liberal" are actually more aligned with libertarian. You have no idea what modern liberalism is.

What you call inclusive, really is acceptance. He told people to follow the law. Remember the moneychangers. He didn't really include them, he kicked them out of the temple on 2 occasions.

If Jesus was a liberal, he would have sent a social worker to care for the sick. Liberals do not do that work themselves, hence the reason for social welfare programs and taxes to support those programs.

Jesus did expect those he healed to have faith in him, and to follow him.

Jesus forgave those seeking to do better. Think of the woman caught in adultery, she did not get forgiven, but was told to stop and go her way.

Jesus expected all to give what they could regardless of income status. This was not a tax he enforced, but wanted each to figure out for themselves how to help their neighbor.

Liberals are hypocrites. Look at Obama's claims that $400 billion deficits were criminal, then turns around and runs $1.3 Trillion deficits.

Liberals need to stop being fans on MSNBC and conservative need to stop being fans of Fox News in order to reduce confirmation bias. Conservatives say liberals are lazy and want hand outs, which is a lie. My liberal friends are just as hard working and provide for themselves just as much as my conservative friends. Liberals say all conservatives are greedy and not charitable, which is also a lie. My conservative friends are not greedy, just as my liberal friends aren't greedy, and both my liberal and conservative friends gives to charities.

The talking heads are spreading lies, and the masses are eating it up to the detriment of the country.

And by the way, Obama is not a socialist, one of the biggest lies.

LSD Lib

This is an example of communication breakdown due to refusal or inability to process the message.

Did you miss the part where I wrote Jesus never TAKES from some to give to others? Jesus gave what is His and what was freely offered, but never forced anyone to pay for His giving. Granted, he was the son of God, so he could make those loaves and fishes go a long way, but they were given willingly and He provided the rest from his own resources, with taking/taxing it out of other people.

All those government programs you love are not free. Someone pays, by force, for the benefit of others. It is TAKEN from them.

We were discussing Jesus, not Robin Hood.

If you still don't get it, try reading Redshirt. He explained it very well.

re:RedShirt
During Jesus' time the government was ruled by kings. People didn't vote for their leaders or system of govt. or laws of the land. So for you to extrapolate that Jesus would be opposed to a democracy where programs are set up to aid the elderly, children and poor is ridiculous. Obviously a governmental system doesn't substitute for "volunteer" charity. We should all be engaged in acts of charity--both in time and resources. But only a fool believes volunteer charity is enough to keep those in need from starving or dying. Even in our LDS wards, it is common for there to be a handful of people that contribute a large portion of fast offerings and charitable acts, while the majority do considerably less.

Jesus did not judge the adulterous woman because her sojourn on earth wasn't over. We will receive our final judgement from Jesus in the next life.

John 12:47

"And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world."

To "Truthseeker" you really have a pessimistic view of the world, just like so many of your ilk.

I have personally seen wards come together and support those in need. If we didn't have so much government forced charity, people could afford to help their neighbors. Why is it that prior to the 1930's people were able to help their neighbors, and take care of those in need without the government?

You are now twisting my words. I never said that Jesus judged the adulterous woman. I said that he did not give her forgiveness. There is a difference. She was was not repentant, and not seeking to do better. The original arguement by LDSLiberal was that Jesus forgave all, but the fact is that that this woman was not forgiven.

RedShirt,

I have seen wards come together as well. And in the LDS community we MIGHT be able to come close.

But there was grinding poverty prior to the 1930s. Large sections of the US where a ward (had one existed) could not have done much because everyone was facing similar poverty.

What about where entire stakes encompass nothing but relatively poor areas? Who provides the help? The larger church? Sure, but that is not neighbor helping neighbor. That is a wealth transfer from one community to another (yes, voluntary).

You will get no argument from me (or most here I think) that self-help is best. The knottier questions are for those who need lifelong help - medical or for daily living.

The Relief Society is great for short and moderate term assistance. But who is going to provide the sort of day to day, year after year care that Medicaid funded nursing homes provide? Family? Only if they are both willing and able. If they are poor, adding an aging parent will likely make it worse. Also, if it is a sibling or parent who needs daily nursing care, that gets back to professionals.

These are the tough questions.