It struck me tonight that my kids may not have any examples to view of people finding common ground. A pastor who was a member of our church and now ministers at a church in another part of town spoke of her former tradition, Church of the Brethren. Turns out that progressive congregations are leaving to join the UCC, leaving a denomination of pacifist conservatives. ELCA Lutheran congregations are fleeing the denomination due to the vote in Minneapolis last summer. The federal government is in deadlock about nearly everything. Every complaint I hear seems to result in a thinly veiled insult to a person stood up in effigy (usually Bush/Glen Beck or Obama). These range from being able to smoke or having to allow smoking to buying alcohol on Sundays to texting while driving to petroleum issues (cost or spillage) to how high to mow the lawn. Ok, maybe not the last one.

The point is that we seem to have fallen into two teams, like it or not. Regardless of our stance on any particular issue, the opposite is automatically the stance of "the opposition" even if they happen, in fact, to agree with us. It seems like this should just be a fad that will fizzle out, except that...

It's working.

I'm sincerely wondering if my kids will have role models in the public space who will demonstrate the skill to find common ground. If our churches can't agree to let the history and mandate of the faith bond them together to work through differences, how am I going to convince my sons not to demonize the kid who has a toy they want?

Is there hope?

There IS indeed hope. And his name is... DAD! Of course!

I agree that everything is "with us or against us." Not my fault/All your fault. Nothing seems to be, let's figure this out, we ALL need a solution. So no, I don't believe there is an "outside" role model for working together.

However, I don't think it can't be taught. BE that role model yourself. If there is something you're passionate about, that someone is equally passionate, yet opposed, talk to that person about the issue, AND about the teaching opportunity and lack of compromise in the world. It might be something they've thought about in regards to their own children.

You don't necessarily have to be that role model either. Teach your sons that THEY can be THAT person who seeks an amicable solution, rather than there always being a 'winner' and a 'loser.'

Now, exactly how you do all of that, well, I'm still working on that.

I think the trick is to simply, "Pick your battles." Don't put your foot down or defend a position that doesn't mean anything. Teach your kids that passion and compromise do not have to be opposites. Be strong, but understand that the "greater good" is important too.

Disclaimer: All of the above is very easy to spew. I am actually wired just the opposite, but I am aware of it. "Gray Areas" irritate me to no end. I like things very "THIS WAY or THAT WAY." I joke about my 'neurosis' often, but it is real. I've learned to make compromises all the time (hey, I got married, not alot of choice there), but just because I can do it, doesn't mean I like it. So raising a child to embrace it, rather than 'accept' it and 'just deal with it' will be extremely challenging for me. In fact, I don't know that I can even do that. Isn't that what mother's are for?

Very true that kids need to see people of differing opinions working it out. Our church does a good job of this and in fact it's one of the reasons we attend. Tolerance is key and something that I try emulate for the young ones.

I also worry about how polarized our culture has become, and how that has manifest itself even in my own family.

I really want to be able to have civil debates on subjects that matter, but it seems increasingly difficult in almost any context. We have two schools of thought and people seek out and converse with only those people that agree with them.

I want to model for my kids that political debate and religious discussions are not out o bounds and are important topics to work out, but I find that when these subjects arise in our extended family that passions run so high, and the gulf between the sides is so wide that we model the opposite of what I would hope for.

Not exactly sure how this happened, and feel uncertain of how to move ahead.

I hope this is a fad too. People have their own version of news or facts these days. They even come out with talking points. The voices of extremes tends to drown out reasonable people. I think most people are in middle and are quite reasonable. I don't think that this helps in ratings or even getting elected these days.

I would challenge people to look at any issue from both sides and argue from both sides. I would try that with my child someday. I will always remain an optimist and hope things change for the better.

Part of the key in my mind is separating passion for a topic from the emotion of the debate. Being passionate about a stance is fine. But it's important (and extremely difficult to do) as you debate not to let emotion or the desire to win overwhelm you.

Too often when we're passionate about a topic we resort to tactics like sarcasm and name calling and suddenly the topic of the debate is lost and it's a battle of wills and a personal attack.

I think back to the arguments my parents had as I was growing up. No matter what the initial topic, eventually my father would accuse my mother of acting just like her mother, or my mother would accuse my father of being stupid. From then on the central point of the argument was lost and the gloves were off. From then on out it was just a screaming match. I see similar tactics being used in the public arena.

In my relationship with my wife, we've talked about how we reconcile our differences of opinion. I'm a born and bred Jersey boy. Sarcasm is hardwired into my genetic code. Many is the time where I've told my wife (and occasionally in front of our 6 year old son), "I can't talk about this right now without saying something mean. Let me think it over. Let me calm down and let's talk about it later when I'm not angry. Otherwise, I'm likely to say something I shouldn't and that's not going to help."

If people could keep that sort of mentality in mind whether in public or private, I think the potential for civil discourse is certainly out there.

Do you find that folks on the other side of the political divide find your positions inconceivable, immoral or make you a bad person?

I feel like opinions are so polarized, that learning from each other is impossible. As a culture, are we divided beyond the reach of empathy?

I know some people who think that, given the same information, everyone would agree them. They take the approach of sending more and more "facts" until it starts a fight. The definition of facts can be disputed and people's values (what arguments hold more value) impact how information changes their mind.

I find a lot of people making blanket statements before starting political or religious topics. Something like "I know that everyone here..." or "Unless you're an idiot..." is common on both sides of any issue, unfortunately. That pretty much eliminates any chance of dialog or learning.

Pipe smoking contests will not ever be on ESPN. Maybe The Ocho, I suppose. But what happens is a group of pipe smokers (not ALWAYS a sausage-fest) are given a fixed, measured amount of tobacco to load their pipes. They pack and have two matches with which to light the pipe. then they sit around smoking that bowl of tobacco. It takes around an hour for a winner to be declared. that hour is boring for everyone. EVERYONE.

What does this have to do with Rifts? One of our Pipe Club members quit today in a flaming fit of rage and cussing at the club president on the telephone because the club is changing the blend of tobacco used for the annual pipe smoking contest. For whatever reason, there is no room for discussion. He wants no change. The people taking over for the local store that has run it until this year are changing to a more standard blend, used in some contests that qualify winners for national and international contests of boredom.

What gives? Somehow, I got sucked into the middle of this. I wish I could moderate the discussion, but it blew up well before I was aware of the sincerity of the issue.

So it's been a few months since I recognized how much this was bothering me. With an election over, it seems like it might be a good time to see if the national year(s) of obstinance might come to an end.

I'm still looking for good examples in popular culture of negotiators and consensus builders.

I have despaired of civil conversation. I won't even post political stuff on Twitter, and certainly not Facebook (my family has "friended" me), which are supposed to be about conversation.

*sits quietly in his silo*