To believe or reject a deity is perhaps an absurd notion. Why is it even a question?

At the center lies a difference in values, driven by economics, lifestyle, and tribalism. One set of population has one set of values. The has a different set. From what I understand, politics is very much about how people interact. Do they interact to impugn or ridicule those who disagree? Do they interact to snuff out those that disagree? Apparently, history tells us that these two methods are quite prevalent.

Personally, I'll never vote for another single Republican in my entire life. I consider the current administration to be a dismal failure. But then I don't do like y'all and blame it on their absurd notion of religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are not quite as fluid as politics, but they are fluid. Those who call themselves fundamentalists are really just part of a greater movement of 19th century rural values. With or without religion this movement would be a force, as it is attracted to a certain idealistic way of life.

I view blaming this brand of religious fundamentalism to be as absurd as those who profess it. The problem is one of establishing a common set of values, not one of assigning blame. Attacking the religion behind the movement does nothing but backfire, as it makes the question into one of us vs. them, and the them seems to be getting more and more political clout. Better to find where the systems of belief overlap so that a political compromise becomes feasible.

The U.S. population is overwhelmingly religious. We can either complain that they are religious and impugn their beliefs. Or we can find out that these religious people are not necessarily a unified block believing in one set of unbending values. Take Catholics, for example. In the Northeast they have historically voted democratic. Yet, this group has slowly eroded as a solid base for the democratic party. The obvious question is why? Catholic religious beliefs are far different than southern fundamentalism (so much so that they have historically called each other non-christian). Yet, y'all seem to treat both these groups as fundamentalists under one umbrella? Perhaps true in some sense, but the groups very much have a different set of core values and beliefs (though there is admittedly much they agree on to).

The Southern Democratic base was eroded by the civil rights movement (which was very much driven by those on the left side of religion). The Catholic base has been eroding based on a number of things, but probably especially on the issue of abortion rights. Now we can yam and yoller about how civil rights or abortion as fundamental human rights. But that's not going to prevent those who see their way of life being eroded from going to the other side of the fence. You can have a litmus test of liberalism that rejects all those who do not accept each and every facet. But don't expect that this a valid long-term political strategy.

Problem with liberals is that they are as absolutist as the fundamentalists are about their agenda. Probably the truth is that the majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle and have been vascillating on which party they vote for. The Republicans have been successful in the recent past in incrementally getting more power, but their margin of victory is still fairly thin. (And this war in Iraq is very much about the Republicans attempting to increase their margin).

As for myself, I am of libertarian bent. I see both parties as wanting more and more interference in our lives. But those who are of this viewpoint are very much in the minority at this juncture in history. I dislike abortion, but I dislike the matter being decided one way or the other by the usurping powers of the federal government. I consider the idea of states to be dead, as the national government can and does interfere with all manner of things that are best left to the states. Now, I would agree that there are some instances where the overriding interest is for federal intervention (I happen to side with the civil rights movement). But the intervention doesn't stop with the very important matters of rights, getting involved in all manner of insignificant mandates. Where that line is drawn is a matter of politics, but both parties draw the line at an incredibly big government.

But I do know one thing. If I tried to build a political solution premised on rejecting religious beliefs as absurd, it would be political suicide. Perhaps you fancy yourself as rational, but your chosen method of interacting on the political landscape by relying on people giving up their religious faith is the most ridiculous notion of all, being totally laughable.

And you consider "them" to be absurd?

And, yes, I am building a strawman from your exact writings. Has little to do with what you are saying in particular. More, just getting some stuff out of my fingers. My arguments that pretend to understand what you are saying are just as caricatured as the arguments pretending to say what religious people believe.

Anyhow, I do believe in Santa Claus, but perhaps not in the form you would relate. Yes, there was most likely a Saint Nicholas, but just as the Historical Jesus, we know precious little about that person (just as there was a Buddha, and a Moses, and a Mohamed). Of these, we know more about Mohamed than any of the others. But knowing more historical information does not equate to being more or less rational (if so, the moonies would win hands down). Anyhow, I digress.

Tied up in these systems of belief, including Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, are metaphors, symbols, myth, aspirations, etc... Indeed, at the core, the question of fact-or-fiction belies the ideas which they convey. And ideas and emotions are what are important. Indeed, the belief in rationality is a fairly recent phenomena in human history, brought on by the Renaissance and the 17th century. Ideas are what binds people together.

Santa Cluas is a shared idea - culture if you will - that seeks to teach a lesson. And what would that lesson be? I for one accept the lesson that's taught by Santa Claus, and I do so in the face of possible ridicule for believing in such absurd notions as innocence and benevolence. But then we'd just get into an argument about the commercialization of the winter solstice.