I can't follow Ray's response, since it doesn't seem as though either one of them mentioned any particular party by name.

The point is, I didn't "discuss what each party wants." I DIDN'T discuss what each party wants. I didn't do that. I didn't. Don't say I did if I didn't discuss what each party wants, because I didn't.

Now, what part of "I didn't do what Dax said I did" don't you understand?

Can't you read? Look at your own post. Look at the quote from your post made in my post.

Do you see the word parties there? What does the phrase you quoted from liz "both contending parties" mean?

Man up. Admit you made a mistake.

OK! I'll humor you a bit. To which parties was I referring? Hmmm? And to support your contention, feel free to quote me at length.

It doesn't matter. The words you quoted from liz leave the word "parties" succeptible to the following definitions: political parties, interested parties (people with a vested interest in the outcome) or individual "parties" (party of the first part). As you and liz use the term you certainly don't mean restaurant guests (party of two) or birthday celebrations..

Whichever definition you care to use, my statement "Then we go on to discuss what each party wants to do to improve education." still applies.

Quite right. And, in fact, my use of "parties" in that particular posting was in the "people with vested interest" vein. However, 'tis neither here nor there, right?


Sounds fine. But I'll go back to discussing partisanship in a more general sense. After all. I still have some folks who I think aren't convinced that "partisanship" isn't necessarily a four letter word. (Well, you know what I mean.)

Hi wanderingspryte:

You wrote:I tend to agree with your assessment but I think the root of the problem runs even deeper than just simple partisanship.

Really, partisanship is a natural, even a necessary, part of establishing how a country will proceed in governing itself even in countries that are less than democratic. The gathering and evaluation of ideas amongst those who are or would be leaders is all part of that essential planning.

The deeper part of the current concern I had in mind when replying to Helice was when partisanship escalates to the point where it begins to hinder the governing of a country rather than positively contributing to helping to establish a strong government that leads the country where it should go rather than have it be led by the whims of the public polls from which it seems to me is what partisanship and winning the vote at any cost largely feeds upon in its extremes.

The Canadian Federal Parliament proceedings are broadcast daily on cable TV. It is a horrid display of bickering and one-ups-manship constantly between all the political parties. There is no real constructive debate to actually find a common meeting of the minds for the betterment of the country but rather a partisan drive for the betterment of the party.

After an election, wouldn't it be much better if those individuals elected dropped their labels of political party affiliation and instead begin to work as a civil servant of their country and instead in the spirit of the betterment for ALL citizens instead of just with those partisans who would receive a mutual benefit?

That's not to say that there aren't any already doing that but it appears in these times the majority are taking extreme measures and working for the betterment of something other than the country's citizens and it's common good.

All the same, North American is still managing to reap the benefits made available to us by the foresight of our founding fathers. It won't last indefinitely though if divisiveness continues largely in its extremes and current path of partisanship.

This thread was started with a post originating in the Faith & Philosophy Forums. It was originally submitted having in mind principles found in the Bible. This is being mentioned just so its originating perspective can be made known rather than trying to bring 'religion' into this forum.

Although I voted in the past, I do not now. From my understanding of the scriptures I believe they teach that we should support our government leaders no matter what their political persuasion is and refrain from those actions that promote divisiveness.

There are 'limits' to this of course, one being the removal of those in leadership positions who themselves willfully or willingly violate civil laws and this is a public matter.

Another limit would be in the personal matter category and involves quite often concerns of personal religious practices (as opposed to religious organizations). The latter has not been an issue to any extreme so far in North America but it could change.

Even in a non-democratic nation where one cannot vote, these Biblical principles would still apply no matter what if any partisanship exists and no matter what type of government structure exists. We should support those in charge in the government whether we agree with them or not and refrain from divisive partisanship in its excess form.

So although excessive partisanship is the bane of good government, balanced partisanship does play a significant part in forming good government but more important is that both the people and the government of the people must work together in unity or good government will not result either.

Hi Ray:

Perhaps partisanship is to politics as much as betting is to horse racing. Politics and horse racing in and of themselves are much less interesting unless they are mingled with partisanship and betting respectively; irrespectively too? What does one talk or hear about with regard to the recent visit to the track? It isn't about the power of the horse or the ability of the driver/jockey: it's about how much they won or could have won on that longshot.

But as you say, the politics and the partisanship that is closely tied in with it should only be a sidebar and remain as such unlike what is found in today's politics. And unfortunately instead of remaining as a sidebar, politics and partisanship have entered into heavily influencing and interfering with the governance of our North American nations.

This sense of partisan politics overshadowing and negatively influencing governance is highly suggested when the term 'non-partisan' pops up. For instance when a particularly sensitive issue comes to the forefront then the government's dealing with it are met with calls non-partisan discussion.

After the election those calls for non-partison discussion should go without saying and party affiliations should be left in the ballot box. Unity and right decision making should be the scepter of the government and the people of country - until the next election.

I understand though that sometime in the future a much better form of government is going to be put into place, better than anything the world has ever seen. There will be no politics and no partisanship. It will be a dictatorship and it's scepter will be righteousness. At that time all will live in peace and unity without the extremes of partisan bickering.

Hi lizbeth:

You wrote:Well I'm not one who participates in politics but tries to keep an eye on it enough to get the drift of current events. Being a Canadian, US politics has become more of an entertainment source especially through the spin of Rush whose tongue must almost be through his cheek by now if not through already.

I see your comment reflecting how partisanship has indeed deeply infiltrated the wheels of government to the point where only an extreme adversarial attitude can be found instead of the mutual edifcation that brings a strong, co-operative and unified government of proper leadership.

Incidently it was Helice who first tied politics and discipleship together. I was only replying to her.