You know youÕve had a good discussion, or at least a healthy airing of views, when the audience members are still talking about it the next morning. As our publisher, COO, editor and arts editor gathered around my desk this morning, the talk expanded the themes of fundamentalist beliefs and where the line between private morals and public policy begins.
A capacity crowd of 130 witnessed a free-for-all session of the Political Party on Monday night at the Shimberg Playhouse at the Performing Arts Center in downtown Tampa. We had some strong opinions, both on the panel and in the audience. If there was a disappointment, it was only that we didnÕt find any common ground in dealing with such tough issues as gay rights, sex and the First Amendment, and the separation of church and state.
Before I weigh in with our assessment of the evening, let me again thank the panelists: Bill Keller, Renee Dabbs, Joe Redner, Brendan McLaughlin, Nadine Smith and Phyllis Hunt. And our sponsors, Tampa Digital and Jobsite Theater. A podcast of our evening should be available soon on this site.
First for some thoughts from our audience.
Ed Thomas wrote via e-mail:
ÒI wished you hadn't glibly let the fundamentalist panel member off the hook when questioned about his strict adherence to the Bible and its teachings (fashion issues). I thought the discussion would revolve around the growth of intolerance among the religious, and their pushing their highly selective understanding of the Bible on others, and its resulting effects on current government. What will the next step be for the fundamentalists? If they believe all of the biblical teachings, when will they implement these:
¥ Leviticus 25:44 gives the OK to slavery
¥ Exodus 21:7 gives the OK to selling your daughter into slavery
¥ Exodus 35:2 puts to death anyone working on the Sabbath
¥ Leviticus 11:10 states that eating shellfish is an abomination, the same abomination as homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22) Ñ or are there degrees of abominations?
¥ Leviticus 19:27 prohibits trimming sideburns
ÒAnd, indeed, it is against the law to wear clothing made from two different threads, as mentioned in Leviticus 19:19.
ÒSince the fundamentalists so rigidly adhere to one of these fundamentally unacceptable tenets, why not adhere to all of them?
ÒMost of us would agree, I hope, that these provisions of the Bible are from a different time and place than we live in, and shouldn't be implemented in the name of god, or should they? Wasn't that the question?Ó
Ed Goebel wrote:
ÒThank you for hosting 'Across the Great Divide' and thank you to the panelists who participated. I am sorry to say that I was disappointed at the combativeness and how the debate kept returning to gay issues. The best moment of the night was when Republican Renee Dabbs quipped that she was pleasantly surprised to discover that she was the moderate of the group! ha ha!
ÒThere was little useful discussion however. It might have been useful to begin the evening with the admission that we think very differently and are rather established in our views. Rather than argue why we are right and the other is wrong, let's ask each other if there is any way we can disagree more amiably and still respect each other's views without agreeing with them. Also I would like to suggest that you ask less extreme panelists to participate. They could study the more extreme positions, and explain them, but they wouldn't display the irrational anger that marred this particular evening.Ó
From my viewpoint, I think that we saw much of the dynamic at work in our nation at work on the stage at the Shimberg. We saw strong moral values that differed, we saw Christians disagreeing over Biblical interpretation, we saw some intolerance, some shouting. We also heard well articulated views (even if many in the crowd disagreed with them) that canÕt be reconciled with othersÕ views on the panel. I think it is a shame that some moments on the panel devolved into a thrashed-out fight over homosexuality, but it demonstrates how far we are polarized in this nation. And I donÕt sense weÕre getting any closer any time soon.
LetÕs keep this discussion going here. Let me know: how can we cross the great divide?
Listen to the show, click here.
This article appears in Jan 25-31, 2006.