Krister Stendahl passed away last month.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krister_Stendahl

He's well-remembered for his contribution to interfaith dialogue.  I'd like to think that keeping his <i>Three Rules</i> in mind - as I've discussed religious differences with and within my family - has helped me be more mindful of the possibility that keeping to mutually-understood rules of engagement might sometimes be more important than winning every debate:

(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.

(3) Leave room for "holy envy." (leaving room for admiration of elements you might envy in other traditions or faiths - rather than resenting the lack of those elements in your own)

Obviously, I'm asking you to make the leap from Stendahl's thoughts on interfaith dialogue to a consideration of whether or not these represent any kind of useful ground rules for engaging supporters of opposing political candidates.

This came to mind after reading this post:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/sexual-politics-by-digby-we-are-seeing.html

Noting the photo displayed in the post, I was led to comment: 

<blockquote>It's frankly tiresome that a self-promoting provocateur like Erik Erling over at IndySkate gets further free publicity at this blog.

As if this guy has anything to do with the Obama campaign or is somehow representative of Obama supporters.

This kind of nonsense will always be with us, and to elevate Erik's stunt to the level of political statement is just ridiculous. The point of the post could've been made without resorting to this sort of cheap misdirection.</blockquote>

Still too early for the rectitude?