Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

41757My views Re: politics

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    Jul 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I'd like to tone this down, but I keep coming across arguments from
      you that seem not entirely rational to me, and find them surprising,
      at least as surprising as you find mine. I really don't relish playing
      the role in this discourse of citizen, but that is what seems to have
      happened. Perhaps you can explain for me how my certainty about an
      opinion I hold is threatening to you in any way - if I am a law
      abiding US citizen? Your arguments seem to indicate that you are less
      likely to be involved in any participation in the system than I. I
      wonder how then I can be characterized as in the wrong here? Certainly
      not as a citizen. Just for having an opinion I doubt will likely ever
      change? I take it as a responsibility of my citizenship in this
      country to be involved with the system, at least enough to pursue some
      fundamental reforms through my vote whether they come to pass or not.
      I will not surrender so lightly to an inactive cynicism concerning
      something as important as a constitutional democracy. I could not face
      my own children and say I allowed their future to be sold away without
      even voting, let alone voicing any dissent. Why allow yourself to be
      disenfranchised without a fight? This thing, this American experiment,
      is not so easy these days, but it is also not so easy to dismiss as
      worthless by not participating.

      You don't agree with me. So be it. It is within the framework of our
      laws here that we can safely disagree without slaughter. Debate is
      neither about games nor winning and losing. It is about informing of
      an opinion. Sometimes one side or the other gives in, but there are no
      rules here other than remaining law abiding. Democratic government is
      not a mystical process in any form. It is simply a group of opinions,
      and a consensus of laws. If that consensus is now being purchased away
      from general opinion by a minute faction of opinion we have a problem.
      We cannot make wealth a criteria of opinion without an equal
      consideration of the criteria of opinion of poverty. The rhetoric of
      opinion in this case does not matter, nor does any agreement, or
      disagreement; only the fact that wealth is actually in such a
      privileged position in the debate over consensus in our franchise. We
      need financial reforms in our political process to restore the
      efficaciousness of debate over consensus. Such reform need not be the
      denial of access to corporate money to public servants, only clear and
      immediate public disclosure.

      Religion will continue to remain a robust factor in our society. Grass
      roots change in opinion on such matters is a slow process. Monotheism
      and science have developed side by side for thousands of years. They
      must fall into the position in our democracy where they belong -
      opinion. The debate will go on, and most on either side will never
      change their opinion in their lifetime. To me they are like part one
      and two in a Hegelian dialectical triad. You despair of philosophy, of
      its active presence in our society. Our democracy is our part three in
      this dialectical situation. The synthetic fact must assert its truth
      above the thesis and the antithesis. We need separation of church and
      state, and separation of science and state, for the truth of our
      American proposition to hold sway; because in our participation in
      this constitutional democracy we are actually all philosophers.

    • Show all 24 messages in this topic