“I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, religion,
in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.”

Thomas Jefferson

It has long been held that neither religion nor politics should be discussed in polite conversation. This being the internet, however, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that we are engaging in polite conversation! Given that, I take the liberty to discuss elements of both here, but just the same, I will try to keep the conversation as polite as I can.

Christians will be familiar with the enigmatic vision of the Apocalypse that John experienced while in solitude on the island of Patmos. It is from this cryptic book of “Revelations” that we derive so much of the fear and the hope that the idea of the end of the world conjures. The Anti-Christ, the mark of the Beast, the Resurrection, the Great Tribulation, the final judgements, the Millenial rule… ample fodder for both dreams and nightmares, an occasional movie, or best selling book for writers both weak on eschatology and literary skills… ok, that wasn’t polite! John describes a heavenly battle where Michael and his angels fight against “The Great Dragon” and his angels, and cast them out of their place in heaven down to the earth below. A loud voice is heard saying “The accuser of our brethren is cast down!”. Elsewhere in scripture The Dragon (Satan) is referred to as a thief, a liar, a murderer, all wicked attributes, but here at the end of all things his nature is described as an accuser; an oddly moderate description for the Prince of Darkness. If there is an end such as this, these puzzling descriptions of the Apocalypse will no doubt hold special meaning for those who witness these events, but as with so many writings, there are meanings beneath the surface that make John’s vision pertinent to every generation. Here, humanity’s enemy is termed “The Accuser of the Brethren”, and the greek word used is kategoreo, the same root from which we derive our english word “category”. Kategoreo implies a legal accusation intended to categorize someone as an offender, not worthy of exoneration or association. And so the great enemy of humanity could be rightly called “The Catgorizer of the brethren”, because in categorizing us as offenders of one sort or another he divides us from each other, and eventually from God himself, because as offenders we are in a different category than God, unworthy of his fellowship. Interestingly the name of the angel who casts out the Accuser is “Michael”, the meaning of which is a question: “Who is like God?”. Who is like God? …no one. If God kept to His own category, He would stand alone.

Now that I’ve lost all but some of my most devoted Christian readers by delving too deeply into religion, I will likely lose the rest of you as I make the turn to politics! It is the way of God, or “The Universe” if you prefer a less personal Deity, to create endless diversity, and then to draw that diversity into union without the loss of that diversity. It is the way of death and darkness to accentuate differences as barriers, to categorize and to separate along party lines, religious beliefs, racial divides, and more. “They are not like us, they are a different category of people…” from there it’s a short jump to seeing those other categories as inferior, or even sub-human. The greatest atrocities of history have come with the dividing of humanity into categories deemed inferior or evil, less than human and inconvenient. Division is of course cancerous, and seldom content with just separating “us” from “them”, it will continue to then divide “us” again, into sub-categories of ever finer distinctions… ultimately leaving each one alone in a self constructed box, because no one is like us.

Our country was founded as a nation where distinctions would be embraced, while unity treasured. E Pluribus Unum. That is why it is so sad to see football players expressing their grievances by not standing for the anthem and the flag, which are symbols of our intent and desire. Sad again when one election causes such outrage that people sever relationships, speak openly of secession and even assassination; restaurant owners, rap singers, and entertainers send their patrons packing if they don’t share the same politics… and those who exhibit such vitriol are lauded for their vulgarity. Hatred has become cast as more of a virtue than love or forbearance, as we literally curse each other for our differences. We feel free to exaggerate, assume the worst, cast aspersions and even lie to advance the righteousness of our hatred, so irreproachable is our hate we justify even violence in its pursuit, and the dividers become our heroes. We expand our hatred of our leaders to hatred of our fellow citizens, using words like “libtards” or “Trumptards” at once insulting those who disagree with us, and the disabled among us as well, …and we consider that clever. We create divisions through the use of labels and categories of humanity, that we view as inevitably separated. What was once denounced as stereotyping is now made more palatable by using modifiers such as “systemic”, “cultural” and “typical”, and by this we excuse our slandering of entire groups of people by pointing to the worst examples of their group. This is what Hillary did when she suggested that half of Trump’s supporters were in a basket (a category) of deplorables. Likewise it is unhelpful for the President to refer to citizens as “sons of bitches” despite how misdirected their protest might be. We are so quick to categorize! Insult is a poor substitute for reasoned debate, but in our society we now appreciate it more. Don McCormick and Michael Kahn wrote that critical thinking can better be taught if we use the metaphor of a barn raising, instead of that of a boxing match. A boxing match may be more entertaining, but if you are trying to build something, punching each other is seldom productive. If we achieve our political goals only by beating dissenters into submission, then we succeed only by taking advantage of their weakness, and we lose their needed strength in the dust of the battlefield; civil wars diminish even the victors.

George Washington’s warning against the influence of political parties is well known. There is little doubt that it was informed by these words from one of his favorite authors, Joseph Addison:

“There cannot a greater judgement befall a country than a dreadful spirit of division as rends a government into two distinct people, and makes them greater strangers, and more averse to one another, than if they were actually two different nations. 

The effects of such a division are pernicious to the last degree, not only with regard to those advantages they give the common enemy, but to those private evils which they produce in the heart of almost every particular person.
This influence is very fatal both to men’s morals and their understandings; it sinks the virtue of a nation, and not only so, but destroys even common sense. A furious party spirit, when it rages in full violence, exerts itself in civil war and bloodshed; when it is under its greatest restraints, naturally breaks out in falsehood, detraction, calumny, and a partial administration of justice.
In a word, it fills a nation with spleen and rancor, and extinguishes all the seeds of good nature, compassion and humanity.”

Sound familiar?