Openly Discussing

WHEN I WAS IN SIXTH GRADE,1966-1967, I adored my teacher, a twenty six year old lady who was married to a navy seal away on active duty, had a son of her own in first grade, and was well liked by all, students and teachers alike. Within the past year or two she passed away at an old age, which saddens me, while rekindling my love and admiration of her. She was among my first true role models, morally and intellectually, and inspired within me and others a love of learning. I think, however, that she made a mistake, an important one. She advised us to never, ever, ever discuss religion or politics, with anyone, at any time. I questioned this admonition then, and I question it now. Why tell us to avoid talking about what to me were then and still are the two most interesting and relevant topics of all? Why foribd, for some fearful potential result, the most important matters from public discussion and discourse? How and why are those two areas of human endeavor lumped into a single category, as if they have anything directly to do with each other?. Religion, maybe. Its a private matter, ultimately, even though we tend to soialize it highly merely by gathering together in large social groups of like minded people when we engage in it through worship. But politics? In a functioning democracy, it is, it seems to me, of the utmost importance that citizens engage in discussions about public affairs, matters of political concern for everyone.. The public forum, wherein we the people exchange thoughts and ideas about matters relevant and important to everyone, is a necessary and vital market place of ideas and ideals for all good, concerned citizens. The reason for the prohibition is obvious; the avoidance of conversational dispute based acrimony. Acrimony, however, is in a democracy an unavoidable certainty, assuming the certainty of different citizens having differing views on matters of vital public concern. No two topics are as fraught with undertones of divisiveness, laden with undercurrrents of potential conflict, than the twin towers of politics and religion. The solution resides in a determination by all involved to refrain from harshness of tone or speech, to avoid all name callling or insulting; in essence, to remain "civil". Easier said than done, perhaps, but absolutely necessary. America has always been a divided country, in one way or another, but has remained united by ideals, ideals articulated by our uniquely wise founders. Modern American society, especially in our modern era of unfettered social media, is a boiling cauldron of conflicting controversial points of view. The bubbling of the boiling point has now become a perpetual roiling, erupting volcano of sundry opinions. Only those who wish to exclude themselves from the cacophony remain outside the perpetual explosion of sentiment. When somebody tells me that they don't vote because their vote doesn't matter, I respond by saying that if one hundred million people vote, their vote consists of one hundred millionth of society's decisions. It should neither be more or less. It matters. The fact that all votes cast are but drops in a grand ocean of societal self governance makes each vote cast more, not less important. Would the individual voter prefer to live on an island, unto herself, discussing issues alone, possessing all power, power over nothing but herself? Let the public forum be wide open and chaotic, let it include everyone, and let us have a spirited, energetic conversation, especially about, of course, religion and politics.