I'm not Steve, but I read and enjoyed your article, at least the Nhat Hanh compassion part. Disclosure: I am a marginal flawed Buddhist. I am not a fan of partisan "them bad, us good", but I'll let that slide except to say that I found it distracting.
I'm not Steve, but I read and enjoyed your article, at least the Nhat Hanh compassion part. Disclosure: I am a marginal flawed Buddhist. I am not a fan of partisan "them bad, us good", but I'll let that slide except to say that I found it distracting.
There was no specific dislike. I tend to react negatively to things strongly partisan. It makes no difference which party it is aimed at. You were not totally without balance, I liked your article, and I agreed with much of what you wrote. Generally, when the word Democrat or Republican appears, broad brush demonization of a whole political party and its people will follow. I don't view people in a monolithic way. I know good people associated with [both] who don't deserve lump demonization. A knee-jerk response. I should not have mentioned it.
I'm not Steve, but I read and enjoyed your article, at least the Nhat Hanh compassion part. Disclosure: I am a marginal flawed Buddhist. I am not a fan of partisan "them bad, us good", but I'll let that slide except to say that I found it distracting.
Was it the part of the article about the Christian Right that you didn't like?
There was no specific dislike. I tend to react negatively to things strongly partisan. It makes no difference which party it is aimed at. You were not totally without balance, I liked your article, and I agreed with much of what you wrote. Generally, when the word Democrat or Republican appears, broad brush demonization of a whole political party and its people will follow. I don't view people in a monolithic way. I know good people associated with [both] who don't deserve lump demonization. A knee-jerk response. I should not have mentioned it.