<atheist@home.com> wrote

The problem with politics in particular is that opinion
is often stated as fact and is also repeated as such by
a number of people and we know what it becomes then.

It's not about other people -- what they do -- it's about you.
As long as *You* are capable of separating out fact from
opinion you can educate yourself.

Facts have a basis. Facts have a source. Facts can be checked,
verified.

At issue here is not how someone else states something -- they
"state it as fact" -- it's whether or not we accept them at face
value or care enough about the truth to actually investigate the
matter.

And, by "investigate," could could be as simple as asking "Where
are the sources that establish this fact?"

A human being can have the sharpest mind in the world and still
believe that he or she is dealing with absolute fact.

I know. It's necessary to some extent. We have no choice but to
operate on assumed knowledge to get through our day. Otherwise,
we could never even cross a street.

I mean, how do you *Really* know the cars will stop? How do
*Really* know your destination is still there? Cars run stop lights
all the time... business close their doors every day... somewhere
in this country there's a fire or robbery every day...

Personal bias of course can trap us and is more than a bit of
an irritant.

It's only truly dangerous when people insist on clinging to it, even
in the face of contradictory facts.

And again we are in agreement on a multitude of sources even
if they are from a direction we don't particularly respect.

It's actually quite useful to use the "other sides" arguments against
them. The pro religionist site that insist the Shroud of Turin had
to be produced in an unright position, not with the "body" lying
down... the creationist site that mentions how organic molecules
have been produced in the laboratory in experiments...

Funny thing though, I know people who have "studied"
a number of sources regarding the Bermuda Triangle
who believe because they have read so many books on
it that they have a clear picture of it.

Collecting sources is the second step. It seems they missed
the first step, distinquishing fact from opinion.

It's also likely that all of their sources shared the same bias.

The same holds true of religion.

Religion & politics are nearly identical.

I think they study to shore up the thing they want to believe
and as long as they do that they will never get at the truth.
The same holds true of those who study politics but only
study from either a conservative or liberal point of view.

I don't assume that people hold a particular point of view
because they insist on believing rather than thinking.

That would be a distinctly uncritical assumption to make.

Maybe they hold unanalyzed political views, maybe their
views genuinly reflect their political priorities and maybe
they're lying.

Many of the very same politicians who shed tears over the
state of public education, for example, are the first to vote
for any bill that piles yet another mandate on our schools,
and the last to support any change. The truth is, they're
against the very idea of federal support of education, and
anything they can do to hurt it is a good thing.

Federal support of public education really begins in the
1950s, well within the lifetime of most members of
congress.

Forgetting the opinion for a minute there is also the problem
of the downright lie or distortation that serves the same
purpose.

Say one thing/do another.

Bill Clinton, the most fiscally conservative President in
a generation, the man who created the "Democratic
Leadership council" for the sole purpose of moving the
Democratic party away from the left, one of the single
most pro-business Presidents in American history
was (according to you) a "Leftist."

That's wildly inaccurate.

It may be inaccurate but not "wildly" so.

Sure it is.

Clinton hobnobs with those on the left including radicals.

"Hobnobs"?

Please. You're making a heavily biased statement as if it
were fact.

Bush "Hobnobbed" with Ted Kennedy to get his "No Child
Left Behind" bill through the Senate.

We are known by the company we keep.

No, "We" are not.

This is a democracy, and a politicians "company" is chosen
by the people.

I do not however feel that he was directly responsible for
911 and wonder what his response might have been.

Much the same as Bush's response, but with more international
support.

I also know there are people who believe Gore would have
wimped out on 911 however he was apparently a hawk when
it came to Bosnia asking military leaders who didn't want to get
involved how he could explain to his daughter that we knew what
was going on there and that we just stood by and let it happen.

Politics as religion.

There's no arguing with such people. They need to believe.

Everything is political from government and education to
religion and corporate policy manuals.

Define "Political."

I looked it up:

I'm not clear on your definition. How were *You* using the
term?

Corporations whose policy manuals say "We expect our
employess to show respect for fellow employees and
managment" are simply stating company policy that makes
their employees more productive.

True.

If however they conduct "sensitivity training classes"
demanding that employess not only respect certain lifestyles
or group behavior that they do not agree with, but that they
also accept those things as being morally legitimate despite
their own beliefs to the contrary, be they political or religious,
they are engaging in social engineering which is a primary
function of politics.

*****.

Managers are expected to enforce (police?) corporate policy.
Whether or not a manager needs to prop up their own
questionable moral standing by looking down on others is
irrelevant. If they represent a company in a department or
event, it is their job to practice & enforce corporate policy.

This is where the "duck test" comes in.

Your position requires animosity towards the "offensive" group.

Change "Gay" or "Muslim" (or whatever group the oh so pious
is offended by) to "Christian," or "Women," or "Jewish." Is the
poor manager just as victimized by corporate policy? Is his
"Rights" trampled because he was asked "Taught" to see Christianity
as a valid lifestyle choice?

Please.

You're confusing Us-verses-Them with P.C. controls.

They have in that case crossed the line from a concern
about company efficiency to concern with their employee's
personal beliefs which are a private matter.

It's not about personal beliefs. It's about enforcing corporate
policy.

You're right, that alone is not enough to defend such practices,
but it's not alone. There's also the animosity test.

If the corporate policy was "Beat on Jew" day it would be
requiring animosity towards your fellow employees due to
their religious & ethnic background.

It's the animosity that makes it undefendable.

Just as the animosity towards the minority de jour is required
in order to share your concerns for these victimized managers.

Saying "Respect your fellow employees" requires *No* animosity,
while saying "I should feel free to spit on people I don't like" is
asking for animosity to be approved by the company.

Your way: There are no lines. An atheist manager can make the
life of all religious people a living hell. A gay manager can
torture their straight employees. A woman manager can take out
her ever frustration on men.

My way: Nobody is allowed to ***** on anyone else for any reason
other than job performance.

If a Christian employee violates the policy manual by showing
disrespect toward a gay employee because he disagrees with the
lifestyle he should be corrected or fired.

I agree. He should also be made to define & describe this "lifestyle."

I've only been asking for, what, eight years now without an answer.

Imo there should be no attempt to educate him in the gay lifestyle
because it isn't relevant to expected conduct.

Condemning an employee for an imaginary "lifestyle" is reason
enough to can any manager, no matter what the nature of the
"lifestyle" they are currently imagining.

Again, there are no lines in your model of the workplace.