Extremity of debate

I've been thinking about this for a while. Has anyone noticed that debate on religion (and everything else) tends to be controlled by the extremes to either side? It's like on one side you have the would-be theocrats who'd like to impose school prayer on every child, insert the Bible into the law of the land and so on; on the other side, you have those who would like to strip every recognition of faith from public life. The reasonable man in the middle doesn't get a look in on that debate because it's easier (and to be honest, more fun to watch) two iconoclasts hurling vitriol at each other than it is to watch a reasoned discussion.

I thought something similar when I was watching the firearms control discussions after the VA Tech tragedy. On one side are the guys who want all firearms banned or, at least, regulated to near-banning. On the other are the "cold, dead hands" crowd (and can I just say, even as a gun rights supporter, that kind of talk is worryingly fanatical). Somewhere in the middle are the reasonable majority who don't want firearms banned but think some regulation would be sensible. I like to think I'm in there somewhere. I'm a target shooter and sometime hunter. I don't think anyone needs a full-auto weapon. On a range, I'll use a semi-auto rifle simply because the gun industry has poured all it's research into them for years and target shooters tend to be obsessive about accuracy (we'd use hand-loaded, single-shot spud guns if it would shave a micron off our target grouping).

Abortion is the same way. Without wishing to get into the abortion arguement itself, the only way you could stake out more extreme positions would be to have one side calling for post-birth infanticide and the other wanting every woman locked up once she became pregnant. Interestingly, the decision laid out by the court in Roe was actually a moderate one.

Even in global affairs, this seems to hold true. I don't want to get into the whole Israel/Palestine mess but there's a huge number of us who think that suicide bombings (I take the point about "homicide bombing" but it's kinda redundant) can never be justified but also think the Palestinian people have legitimate grievances that must be addressed. There's a huge number of us who think Israel should exist and should be a safe, modern nation (which is not to say immune from criticism, no nation is immune from criticism) but also think that something needs to be done here to stop masses of people dying.

Pick a subject: Politics. It seems that right now, the entire discussion is dominated by those who think George Bush Jr. is the worst president in history and those who think he's the best thing since sliced bread. I'll confess that I lean more toward the former but that means that the people somewhere in-between (if there's any left at this point) simply don't get heard.

But always, we come back to religion. Some of you know me. I'm a religious man, not a very popular religion perhaps but there it is. I don't want to live in a world where religion is entirely removed from the public sphere but I also don't want to live in a world where The Bible is the be-all, end-all of civilised discussion (not least because I'd be first on the pyre). No, we don't want teacher-led or mandated prayer but we also don't want kids banned from prayer in schools (I am perfectly aware that a kid praying is perfectly legal, I'm perfectly aware that "religion banned from schools" is a myth, I'm speaking to perception here). We don't want books banned for being "anti-Christian" (there's a very short list of reasons I think a book should be banned, that isn't amongst them) but we also don't think books of faith (any faith) belong on a banned list either.

The problem with being part of the mushball middle is that both sides tend to assume you're the enemy. I'm pretty liberal on social issues, moderate on financial ones and pretty draconian on law and order. If I tell one side that I'm against teacher-led prauer, I'm written off as a flaming liberal. If I tell the other side that I'm in favour of the right to keep and bear arms (with a few sensible restrictions), I'm suddenly cast as a gun-nut hyper-conservative (something I'd reject). Tell one side that I'm a devil worshipper and they'll condemn me to the abyss. Tell the other side that I think the moment of silence (when you can pray or quietly read or even finish your homework) was a good idea and I'll get cussed out.

I'm not sure what I'm asking for here. Perhaps it's easiest to sum up as a reminder to remember that there are people, lots of us, somewhere between Pat Robertson and Bishop Spong, somewhere between Ted Nugent and the "ban all guns" crown and, if you'll forgive me the cliche, somewhere between the devil and the deep blue sea.

being reasonable yet characterized as extreme by a highly biased media. Seems when you read sources from outside the US arguments from those that are designated 'left' are more the norm. To me we are living in a society that is passed in its religious fervor only by the Islamic fundies. It is really scary.
I always tell people, my outlooks haven't changed greatly over my life. I used to be considered middle of the road, maybe even a bit conservative. Now I am considered extreme left wing.
BTW most other western countries believe W is the worst president ever.

I'm a Brit. I actually read some of your mass media and while I constantly hear cries of "liberal bias", when I compare it to our own respectable media (The Observer, the Telegraph, the pre-Murdoch Times), I can see a subtle but noticeable conservative bias. And yeah, most people here think W is the worst president in history too (the only reason I don't is that I'm an amateur historian and like to take the long view).

I'm not sure if it's fair to say that one side is reasonable but characterised as extreme. The "ban all guns now" crowd are pretty extreme. Sure, they're a fairly small minority but so are the Ted Nugent-like gun nuts.

I often wonder how they ever were labeled 'conservative'? They spend money like drunken sailors and waste resources like there is no tomorrow. It seems their purpose is not to move mankind forward using their ideals, but to amass money and power while crushing their opponents using techniques employed by dictatorships. No, conservative they are not.
What amazes me is that people I know who are true conservatives follow these bastards because they are identified as conservatives. On the rare occasions when I can get them to look rationally at what is going on , they agree with me. But they then go back to following the leaders. I just can not understand it. And what the press in this country is doing is a national disgrace.
I'll give you the gun thing and groups like PETA.

And, unfortunately, it tends to be the people willing to reach a reasonable compromise that get flattened like peanuts on a railroad track. There's not a lot of traffic in the middle of the road. (What a lousy metaphor! I'm editing that out!)

Surely, if history has taught us anything, it's that compromise between people of reasonable intent is the quickest way of actually getting things done.