Originally, “of the polis”, pertaining to the public world of offices and official rules, commerce and transactions, and the like.
By conventional usage, “of power”, pertaining to the processes by which power, control, and social order is established and maintained.
Since 1970, the personal is also political (it isn’t just public offices and official laws and governments that are relevant to power and control of behavior). If the personal were not political, it would never be of more than passing interest whether I’d said something offensive about your religion, your race, or your sex (or you about mine). But because it is, it is.
Reciprocally, though, my open avowal of my religious choice is also political. Unlike my race and my sex, my religion and my religious choice is an act on my part, and insofar as that act has political consequences, it is a political act.
Good point, and good example. In the course of making the second statement, you distinguish yourself from politics normally associated with your religion. That is a political act, too–in the course of making that distinction, (which reassures me, a pro-SUV person, and causes me to admire you), you risk offending and infuriating other members of that religion.
Because it is still very much a political statement. (Ask anyone who has ever stated in the presence of other Southern Baptists that they are Southern Baptist yet believe in full civil rights and partner benefits for gay people, and they’ll corroborate that).
I see (or at least, I think I see). Well, I would quibble with your definition of political, were my quibbling relevant, but I don’t think it is.
What is relevant, it seems, is that I think you’re attributing too much homogeneity among members of a given religion. Yes, we stereotypically associate certain political views with certain religions, but I think it’s nonetheless inappropriate to assume that because you know what someone’s religion is, you know what their political views are.
Maybe I’ve missed your point, still, but that’s what it seems that you’re saying, so that, for instance, we stereotypically associate Southern Baptists with being against partner benefits for homosexuals, ergo if we meet someone who declares himself Southern Baptist, we may assume that he’s against said rights. Have I got the gist?
Insofar as (IIRC) the Southern Baptists have issued a position paper to that effect, I think it is reasonable to assume that anyone who says “I am a Southern Baptist” has identified themselves with this position unless they go on to distance themselves from it. I would not assume it with the same sense of inevitability as I would assume that the same individual believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God (which is a position this person may also distance herself from, but that’s probably less likely).
If I meet someone who identifies as a “conservative Republican” in the US, I would assume this person would be opposed to expanded Federal social programs for addressing newly identified needs, whatever they might be. I think it would be a reasonable assumption right up until the individual dissociates themself from that position.
In both cases, they are generalizations, and admittedly another word for “generalization” is “stereotype”. The misuse of generalizations (in particular the blind and mulish application of them to members of an identified plurality) is a source of much pain.
But if I went to an abortion open-mike debate and said “I am a Catholic” and did not follow that with “but…”, I would expect the audience to assume concurrence on my part with the official Catholic Church position on the subject, and therefore the legitimacy of someone saying to me, “I hate the way you people oppose a woman’s right to choose, and I think you’re evil for that!”
AHunter3, the problem with your generalization/stereotype is that it’s inaccurate. The assumption that Catholics believe in or follow the official Church position on any issue is more likely to be wrong than right, and is part of the very prejudice reflected in the survey inthis thread.[ul][li]Catholic women in the United States are as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion, and 29% more likely than Protestant women.[/li][li]64% of US Catholics disapprove of the statement that abortion is morally wrong in every case.[/li][li]69% of US Catholics believe a woman who has an abortion for reasons other than to save her life still can be a good Catholic.[/li][/ul]And regarding birth control…[ul][li]96% of all Catholic women who have ever had sex have used modern contraceptive methods at some point in their lives.[/li][li]Less than 3% of sexually active Catholic women use church-approved family planning methods.[/li][li]72% believe that one can be a good Catholic without obeying the church hierarchy’s teaching on birth control.[/li][li]Catholics are about as likely as the total population to support U.S. aid programs for international family planning - 79% vs. 80%[/li][/ul]
I am seeing everyone drift away from the original question. Remember we are not debating the difference and mixture of politics and religion , only why does it seem alright to show attack someones politics and not their religion.
I think a major factor is that unlike relgion , wether or not you want your taxes raised or lowered does not have an effect on your eternal salvation. I know I take my relgion much more seriously than I do politics. When I am dead being a republican or a democrat will not have mattered.