Losing friends over politics?

[Emperor Roland]

No, this is not to talk about how much we love or hate the current President.  This is not to talk about how much we love or hate the current state of the US political system.  This is actually about something that I personally feel is even more important.

Do we throw away friends we don't agree with?  And if so, where is that line? (and i am not talking about FB friends, or other social media BS... I'm talking about real life friends)

So, I have seen a whole lot of people out there saying that they have either thrown away friends, or lost friends because they do not agree on the current political issues.  Is this right?  Is it acceptable?  or is it just a manifestation of the current times?  I don't know, I don't care, but i will say this.  If I were to lose a friend because I dare not agree with them on the political hot topic of the day, then in my oh so humble opinion.... fuck 'em!  I don't think i could care any less, other than to feel sorry for the person who is so insecure in their own thinking that they can not handle being around someone who doesn't agree with them.  I have lots of friends where we just agree to not discuss politics, or we agree to disagree, and leave it at that.  but to throw away a friendship, perhaps even years and years of it, all because we don't agree on something is beyond moronic.  at least thats my feelings.  What are yours?

 

Is the current state of politics to the point that it's okay to throw away a friendship because someone disagrees with your political stance?  Lets look at an example.  Since most of the people on this forum are gay, or at least gay friendly, would it be proper to stop being friends with someone who opposes gay marriage?  even if they know you are, and are okay with it.  Yes there are people who are okay with gays, but still oppose gay marriage.  And i personally think they have a valid argument.  does it mean that those who support gay marriage have arguments that are not valid.  Nope.  Both sides of an issue CAN have valid arguments.  it's not all or nothing. 

What got me onto this topic?  Well i saw something on FB about people who have thrown away even family members because of different political opinions.  when asked about it, one person said that the person they won't speak to anymore is obviously a racist, xenophobic, misogynistic... etc, because they voted for Trump.  

 

So what are some thoughts on this?  I really would like to hear from everyone, especially if you disagree with me.

 

Remember, all points of view are allowed, however, personal attacks against anyone will not be tolerated.

[Adam]

Indeed, Roland, the mark of a worthwhile relationship is mutual respect and the sign of a thinking mind is the ability to see life from the opposite point of view. Perhaps too many of those who the speak the loudest have travelled the least both geographically and philosophically. I once had the dubious "honour" of being seated next to an aide to then popular televangelist Jimmy Swaggert at a political event in Virginia. Conversation was difficult, but I was determined to attempt to be pleasant. I was there with my wife and two children - my gay second son being someone yet on the distant horizon at that point - but being a paediatric surgeon I had very realistic views on child sexuality. 

I thought I might interest the man in some small talk onEmmanuel Kant, No? Plutarch, No?  "Please, Dr keep to Biblical issues,  sure issues". Ignoring the fact he had overlooked who Kant was, I then enthusiastically invited him to discuss his opinions on Thomas Merton's ideas. After further blank looks I gave up and talked to my 10 year old son about his Sunday School project about Miriam in Islam. 

Acquaintances often disappoint one. If they're worth keeping, they will either say, "I don't want to discuss this please. Kindly respect my wishes to move on to a less provocative subject. I don't want anything to be said which might tarnish our relationship". Or they'll be magnanimous enough to roll with the punches, giving and taking, and still smiling at the end. 

But, Roland, I have studiously avoided a word you used repeatedly in your excellent note. I avoided it because, as with the words hero, icon, unique, and others, by its over use it has become cheapened. The word is friend. I have a score of close colleagues, hundreds of acquaintances. I count myself as having been truly blessed with two friends in my life. Who would listen to my nonsense! 

Adam

[ken barber]

There are some beliefs that are just not acceptable. I would never be friends with a white supremacist, if I found out a friend was in fact a white supremacist than I would no longer consider us friends and would question my judge of character. As you know Roland we are sometimes pretty far apart on politics and we do debate them on occasion. We do know (most of the time) where to draw the line when we are becoming too heated. People getting pissed at each other over a political issue is nothing new. Keep in mind the succession of the southern states before the onset of the Civil War was a political topic.

" In 1820 and again in 1850 threats of civil war between North and South prompted compromise, while the Democrats and Whigs – the dominant national parties during the 1830s and 1840s – worked in the main to keep the issue at bay. But in the 1850s it arose again. By then growing intransigence, and each faction’s sense of its moral and social superiority, put political compromise beyond easy reach."

"It wasn’t that Lincoln was the first nominee for the presidency to run on an antislavery platform. Minority parties, alarmed by the increasing entrenchment of plantation slavery, had fielded emancipationists in every presidential election since 1840, and in 1856 the newly formed Republican Party had celebrated a powerful showing on a manifesto committed to containing slavery – a “relic of barbarism” – within existing limits. But the real turning-point came four years later when, for the first time in the history of the American republic, an antislavery candidate committed to putting slavery in the way of ultimate extinction triumphed in the electoral college."     Excerpt from www.historyextra.Com

 

In this particular instance the divide in the country ran so deep whole families were ripped apart and in many cases faced each other on a battlefield. This did not happen overnight but was a very slow process. The divide in our country politically started with the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, where Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner himself attempted to include an "attack" on slavery in the document. 

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.  This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain.  Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce.  And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2h33.html. 

The Civil war began on July 4, 1776 with the removal of that section which amplified the argument of slavery to a national level. Anti-slavery leaders made compromise after compromise to allow the slave states to prepare themselves for the eventual abolition of slavery over the span of 85 years. The morally sound and righteous belief that human beings cannot be bought and sold as property was so correct then any objection to it is invalid and morally wrong. The same rule applies to white supremacy. It is morally disgusting. 

Now we could argue all day about politics and we will disagree about politics but I don't find your positions morally disgusting a bit naive in my opinion but not disgusting. 

 

[ken barber]

I was obviously under the influence when I wrote my response.

The end result is the same, people have been torn apart by political issues for centuries. This is nothing new. We just see it more because of social media and instant communication. Yes there are some issues that would cause me to "unfriend" someone. We are all human beings regardless of some imaginary line drawn on a map, regardless of the color of your skin, regardless of you sexual orientation or gender Identity, or your faith, regardless of what language you speak. Most of the people of the world are just trying to survive and protect their families in the best way they can. 

I will use a current topic to define my statement.

The removal of children from their parents at the border.

Regardless of what you are watching or hearing the majority of these people are seeking asylum. However even if their were not they are human beings that have left their homes, families, and friends. They embarked on a harrowing journey with only what they could carry. They braved so much hardship to get away from a country crumbling  into anarchy, where gangs are the rule of the land. Their treatment at the border will be a stain on our history for ever. They should have been treated with diginety and respect. Families should have been kept together. We are the United States of America, we are better than what was done to these people. (yes over two administrations.) If someone told me they deserved to be treated like animals and famileis should have been separated then I would say to them. "You are a vile person and we could never be friends" They are refugees, I know some of you are thinking "I guess that means we should put them in 5 star hotels " No that is not what I am saying but treating these PEOPLE like prisoners is disgusting. The US military can set up refugee camps that can handle 3 or 4 time the amount of the refugees currently being detained. The due process can still be applied and most will end up deported back to the country of origin but they could have at least been treated like human beings. AID workers should have had access to them, doctors with out borders sent numerous requests to assist and were turned down. Other nations offered help and were turned down. This was  deplorable, plain and simple if anyone wants to argue that point only then I am sorry we are not friends and if we were before I am sorry I have such poor judgment of character.

[Cynus]

To me, drawing the line comes down to where their fundamental beliefs lie. I have unfriended people before, some of them for petty reasons and I regret those because it was stupid of me to do. I recognize my fault in that and try to be more compassionate now.

But sometimes you discover something about a person after many years of knowing them, and it's something which is fundamentally opposed to you in every way. Ken's white supremacist example is one I understand, for instance, though it would depend on their level of "white supremacy". If they're out burning crosses in the yards of People of Color while they chant threatening messages or urge violence and subjugation against people who are non-white, that's a difference in political beliefs I would never tolerate. If they happen to be a little racist, making racist jokes every now and then supporting openly racist candidates? I'd tell them my position and open it up to debate, because I would believe they're more than likely misguided and simply haven't had proper exposure to people of color allowing them to understand the beautiful diversity that is the human race. Maybe I'll try to introduce them to some of my friends who are people of color, in order to expose them to worlds they'd never thought of before. One of my editors hated Mexicans, and I introduced her to my coworker who was a young, Mexican-American political activist for Latinas In Action. They get along great now, and though there are still some ways my editor hasn't fully grown out of her prejudice, she has grown and is continuing to see the world differently.

On the other hand, if my editor had come to me one day and said, "We need to kill all the Mexicans because they deserve it for being Mexican" I would've never spoken to her again after telling her exactly how wrong she was, unless she changed her position and admitted her mistake that is.

The same goes for any other political position. If a "friend" is advocating harm to others out of bigoted reasons, I'm going to attempt to put them in their place, and if they then decide to continue, I won't have them in my life.

If they're only preaching a difference of opinion, however, one that doesn't outright involve harm to others (or at least that they don't realize harms others), then I'll either debate them as friends or agree to disagree and not talk about the issue with them.

[Adam]

One cannot debate with a person convinced beyond reason that he or she is right, and further is incapable of rational, abstract exchange of ideas without getting angry or resorting to the use of expletives. I have surrendered trying to debate with Biblical literalist, for example, or Quaranic literalist for that matter, and I have close acquaintances each such irrational mindset. We simply don't waste one another's time going over old ground on this as each of us knows we will not change the other.

It is an unfortunate cross we who are always right must suffer. Others are never as lucky as we are to have been given such perfect revelation.

LOL !!

Adam

[William King]

I think you have to try, no matter how difficult and uncomfortable, to look outside your "box" and attempt to understand the underlying causes. Nobody is born a white supremacist or a religious fanatic. Arguing with a person who has a fixed view serves very little purpose. Understanding that someone has invested their entire life into a religious belief, no matter how that looks to you, you have to realise that taking that away from them is tantamount to destroying that person. So you will never win your argument, because they have way too much invested,  their entire life. What you might achieve, by being less confrontational, is to shift their view point a little bit. Everyone needs to realise things for themselves. Sometimes there is nothing you can do, the person will, as previously quoted, "unfriend" you. I think we all have friends of different degrees, I don't believe unfriending is a way to go. You wouldn't hang out for long with an extremist of opposing beliefs, but unfriend is one short step from enemy. While there is dialogue there is a chance for change.

We had friends at our gay marriage who don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt children, because children need a mother and father, not two fathers or two mothers. I didn't say, "I'm not having you at my wedding, because you think like that." I posed some questions: what about single parent families? Would you rather see children in orphanages?" And I invited them to the wedding anyway. Try to open people's minds, don't make unnecessary enemies. It might not harm you to do so, but it may hurt someone else.

 

[ken barber]

I think the time for trying to enlighten people has come to an end.  Just this past week I witnessed (from the sidelines) a white supremacy group attempt to hold a rally on the lawn of the Rhode Island Statehouse. I also watched a dedicated group of very diverse counter protesters shut the rally down. No hate speech is not free speech if you are advocating that one race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity or national origin is superior to another you are wrong. There is no debate or excusable conditions. If you cannot see that every human being has the same basic rights as you regardless of different cultures then you don’t have the right to be heard.  

[Al Norris]

I suppose we will have to disagree with each other here, Ken.

There is no such thing as "Hate Speech". There is speech that you don't agree with. There is speech that you find particularly distasteful. There is even speech that you would find vile and evil (such as the message white supremacists would like to advocate). But none of this is "Hate Speech".

"Hate Speech" is a political weapon, defined by those using the term, and used to bludgeon those whom you politically disagree with. It is very much used as the term, "Assault Weapon", variously defined by those whose agenda it suits. As a political weapon, both terms are used as an attempt to shut down debate.

When you use terms like, "the time for trying to enlighten people has come to an end", you are really saying "that the time for debate is at an end, agree with me or I will shut you down".

Well, congratulations Ken. The protesters in Rhode Island just used the hecklers veto to shut down speech they did not agree with. And no, they were not "counter protesters". First, there must be a group of people who are protesting (something), in order for another group to "counter" protest. Nothing of the sort happened on that day. A vile group of white supremacists gathered to send a message. Before they could begin their speech, or very shortly into their speech, another group of people quickly assembled to protest their message. This second group simply and effectively shouted them down. That is the very definition of a hecklers veto.

"If you cannot see that every human being has the same basic rights", your words Ken.

[ken barber]

Definition of Hate Speech by Merriam-Webster

"speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people based on Race, Religion, National origin, ethnicity, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity."

White Supremacy groups believe that anyone that does not think and look like them does not deserve the same basic human rights as they do. This is Hate speech and using the first amendment as a tool to promote hatred and bias, is immoral. At some point we must stop shouting the letter of the law and discuss morality. 

The Hecklers Veto according to the first amendment is the suppression of free speech by the government because of the possibility of a violent response. 

Protesters shouting down a White Supremacy group and them giving in and leaving is not a Hecklers Veto its Free speech.

[Al Norris]

Gotta love it! First you say that we need to stop discussing law and discuss morality...

Quote

At some point we must stop shouting the letter of the law and discuss morality.

In the very next breath, you give me law....

Quote

The Hecklers Veto according to the first amendment is the suppression of free speech by the government because of the possibility of a violent response.

Which is it Ken? Law or Morality?

And if it is morality, whose morality? The Christian view? The Muslim view? Hindi? Taoist? Shinto? Buddhism?

But back to the topic at hand. Since you used a common dictionary to define hate speech (and not the law), allow me to use a common definition of "Heckler's Veto" by one of the left's own people. From the Wikipedia article on the subject:

University of California, Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky has invoked the concept in an editorial following an incident on February 8, 2010, in which heckling by individual students disrupted a speech by the Israeli ambassador Michael Oren. Chemerinsky explained that broad freedom exists to invite speakers and hold demonstrations, but that once a speaker has begun an invited lecture, “You have the right—if you disagree with me—to go outside and perform your protest. But you don’t get the right to come in when I’m talking and shout me down. Otherwise people can always silence a speaker by heckler’s veto, and Babel results”.