Who's Depeche Mode? Must be before my time...

Its not unusual to have differences and debates about public policy, or administrative methods. In fact, its probably wholesome. But in politics, the consequences of these decisions often translate into economic or social consequences.

Again, there's nothing wrong with this, and its probably all for the better, too. But when champions for or against a particular philosophy make it their job, their career, then it gets ugly. They feel the need to personalize it, and to promote their ideas by demonizing the other, often in areas that have nothing to do with the issue or controversy involved.

For example, if someone doesn't believe in global warming because they are not convinced by the evidence, or because they feel we haven't been studying the problem long enough, or with sufficiently accurate tools, then I may not agree with them, but I don't take it personally, I don't feel personally threatened by them.

But if my opponents are convinced my stance on climate is due to my being part of some sinister conspiracy dedicated to taking away their freedom and their property, and feels that that justifies whatever it takes to silence and defeat me and my views, then I do take it personally.

Or to put it another way, even if it means stretching the metaphor to the point of breaking...I don't believe there's much difference theologically between the Dalai Lama
and Jerry Falwell. They're both dead wrong as far as I'm concerned.

But Jerry and his kind just seem much more threatening to me than the little Himalayan monk. What's the difference? Its not in my hate, its in theirs.