Still, what a beautiful post.
As a person who sees little value in religion, but a great deal of value in humanity, in all its permutations, I can't agree with your current position on absolutely everything (gay marriage and adoption for one). But that's not the point. Fearless soul searching that leads to a willingness to compromise -- whether it is yours, or mine, or anyone else's -- is the point, and that is change we can believe in.
At the rate you're going in you soul searching process, and if I keep up the effort I'm making in mine, we will meet in the general vicinity of the middle in no time and both be better for it. As will others who do the same.
Thank you for being such an inspiring example.

Wendy is so right, still. It's the search that matters, not the final destination. Never stop questioning that which you previously held firmly as true. If we could all be strong enough to at least try that approach to our lives, the world would be better for it.

You batted this one out of the park, si.

On those occasions when I am battling through an issue or ten, a friend reminds me that everything always turns out OK in the end, and if it's not OK now, it's just because I'm not at the end yet. :-)

In the meantime ...

If I understand them correctly, conservatives like Michael Novak and Richard Land essentially feel that their values are under attack by liberals who want to impose gay marriage on them, push religion out of the public square, radically change the traditional hierarchy of marriage through feminist identity politics and in general put the US in the fast-tracked, judicially legislated, handbasket to hell.

The thing is, si, underneath those issues are the worldviews of each side. Conservatives tend to see most things from the zero-sum game angle, where life's pies are finite and those pieces not on their own plates but in someone else's possession, are exactly equal to what they will not be able to have in their own possession. In order for someone to gain, someone else has to lose, and that's just the way life is.

On the other side is the view that the more everyone has, the bigger the pies will grow because more people will be contributing to them.

So when conservatives hear liberals wanting to include all religions in holiday displays or drop the idea of school prayer because it would be impractical to include them all, and unfair not to, they see their share of the public square shrinking as a result and are furious that their traditional values are being pushed out of the square altogether.

I don't know about most liberals, but I was surprised as hell to hear that's what I was doing. In my mind, the public squares would expand to accommodate everyone's beliefs and we would all be better off for having done so.

In the marriage scene, liberals don't look at gay marriage as a threat to traditional marriage or believe that "Once you start redefining marriage, where do you stop?" is even the issue. I think it's more about giving people that have the same hopes, dreams and goals as the traditionally married, the same abilities and vehicle to achieve them. And not having ever heard that there are only so many marriages allowed on the planet at one time, there should be nothing to stop the welcoming of more people to the dream, or so I think liberals tend to think.

All of which leads me to the admittedly tentative conclusion that the issues we talk about are really based on the politics of inclusion and exclusion and how they fare when our life pies are at stake. :-) And what type of pie society do we want to live in?

I hope some of this made sense. I'm going to bed now. This was exhausting! Thanks again for such a personal thought provoking post.

Sometimes stream of consciousness is good, Des...just ask quinn.

I agree with you that it's hard for women to find a balance, but I don't think it's any less difficult for men, especially now that they are expected to participate in their children's lifes in untraditional ways while still succeeding at work. But having to make these choices has positives as well as negatives. Yes, it can stress us out. But actively seeking a balance makes it more likely that, at least sometimes, we'll find one.

Seashell, you pretty much stated what I think about the pie--there's always enough to go around. Especially on the gay marriage and gay adoption issue, love is love is love. And there just can't be enough of it in the world, as far as I'm concerned.

Still, as confusing as it is, I hope it also feels good to be able to question your core beliefs. If we all spent a little more time reflecting, there might be less yelling.

As Lux would say, "the comments have ennobled the thread."

I wish I could pull a sentence here, a sentence there, from many of you. But I think seashell has captured the central image. And it reminded me a a wonderful image, and there are so many, from the Chronicles of Narnia. It comes in the book where the donkey is dressed up as the false Aslan. And the image I'm after is the stable. Those who believe in the false Aslan enter a "stable" - it's dark, it's smelly, it's dirty. And they're huddled there in the dark, dank cramped space. Those who believe in the true Aslan (and read here whatever your deepest, widest, truest values are) - when they enter the stable, it's as if they've just gone through a door into another world: brighter, truer, more beautiful, more spacious... It's a not a stable at all! The sun is shining and they can just start walking across the hillsides and beyond. So they walk ahead, leaving behind (within that beautiful natural scene, this little group - huddled together, believing they're in a dark, dank, cramped and smelly place).

That's what we're up agaist! And that's my little contribution to this lovely thread.

Rec'd, stillidealistic, for your amazing honesty and introspection although the country is hardly polarized a la the Civil War. A primary reason for that war was the ruling classes (of both North and South) were struggling for power supremacy in the US. It's worthwhile going through the first 100 pages or so of James McPherson's BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM.

I don't fault you for this marrying of images, however. Much of the punditry comparing Obama to Lincoln (which our candidate from Ill loves!) and these times to the Civil War is simplistic at best and naive at worst. This also includes the now overworn phrase "team of rivals" which is the Dem answer to the GOP phrase "maverick". (One huge difference there is that Lincoln was involved in a very different type of election and the pool of competent candidates was much smaller.)

The real problem on the horizon is that the US Public doesn't understand that it's standards of living will soon be dropping permanently as natural resources (oil, water) begin to literally dry up. This may be the think that ultimately causes bloodshed. The silver lining is that it is cheap energy which yields high tech that even permits the idea of an intrusive government -- so that problem will be "solved" eventually.

Here's a few labels for you:

Sincere
Moderate
American
Rational
Thoughtful

Or just use the acronym if you really miss being labeled in the culture wars.

In praise of your introspection, I will add a few questions your post raised for me.

You say that you needed to redefine yourself, but do you think prior to this other people defined who you were? We are socialized to be what other people want which doesn't leave much room for critical thinking. We find safety in external controls rather than independent internal beliefs.

Isn't it odd that even the smallest of child knows the basics of right and wrong even when they are uncontrollably selfish; and then constantly told throughout our life what right and wrong actually is. Maybe it is the absolute dependency that frees the child to be closer to the "truth," then as we become independent, and the risk and danger involved in it, we succumb to those bad tendencies and need those external codes to keep us in line and secure our place in the world.

My feeling is if we developed our own sense of self and codes of behavior without the outside influence, and I have no idea how this would happen, we would all develop a universal understanding. Maybe that would be Utopia. Maybe that is the lesson of the Garden of Eden. When outside forces cast influence over us, and then define what is an internal natural feeling, all things start to fall apart.

I often sense a feeling of guilt when women speak of their choices they dared make in spite of the still obvious gender roles which are the problem. Our culture has moved well beyond the gender-specific biological roles we express, yet we haven't socially evolved to our fuller ability. Women are expected to assume both roles and be a more complete person, but men are way behind in following the same path. So I guess this means, in general, women ARE better then men because they succeed over a wider area of our society than men do. So it wasn't your growth at the expense of your marriage, it was your husbands lack of growth that was at the expense of your marriage. I only use you as an example to illustrate what might be a better cause to blame, and not to judge your relationship.

Maybe as a way to delve into the question of marriage, getting to the truth below the cultural baggage, you can ask yourself - after a life of living as a couple with all those things you went though together, would you honor your feelings of connection, dedication and commitment (in short, love and choice) any less if you didn't have a church ceremony? I think the dignity and special spiritual force surrounding marriage is defined by this commitment, this vow, people give to each other regardless of the religious institution. As another example, think of the parent child bond, probably the most spiritually connected relationship we have with each other. Would you question the validity or the dignity of a Mother or Father because of a religious difference? Or would you question the undying bond just because a Mother was an atheist?
It is just this sense of dignity and honor of our humanity that we ask for, that I demand, when speaking of marriage. When others try to deny or dismiss our access to marriage, defined by some of the most human of experiences (in short, love), it is a knife to the heart. As much as I am sure of myself, confident and unafraid, it still question my worth sometimes knowing that I need it in writing, by law, that I am equal to everyone else - but only as a protection, not as a natural truth. Fighting for the legal right to marry, at the same time, proclaims our equality even though we know we are not equal. Woman's suffrage also embodies this conflict - it automatically establishes of subservient position when you had to demand your right to vote of your free will even though it can never be broken.

One last observation from your post. You raise the futility of the cultural polarization we are seeing by forcing us to the extremes. Cultural forces also have a polarized effect on us by, in the name of superior ideological protection, only end up filtering out the truth. Thanks for inviting us in to your discovery.

I'm fully aware, however, that there's a certain amount of backwards arguing there. I've come to a conclusion, at least partly by instinct, and I'm using logic to justify that conclusion. I still think my conclusion is valid, but there's no simple scientific way to prove that it is.

Er, not only is there no simple scientific way to prove this, I would assert rather confidently that there is no scientific means, simple or not, to prove either of our contentions. This is not a scientific question, so you need not worry that your answer does not rise to the level of rigor expected in the sciences. I would not expect it to. I know mine does not. Incidentally, I would like to preface what I am about to write by saying that Stillidealistic asked me a question, and I gave her an answer. You responded to my answer with a consideration which you thought stood as a cogent point of critique to the answer I gave. I am responding to that critique. In other words, I am simply trying to explain what I think. I am not trying to convince anyone else of anything. I just wanted to make that clear before going any farther.

The neurons don't represent merely your consciousness, but also your experiences and essence. So, perhaps I'd argue that either consciousness or experiences are necessary for life protections to kick in. I.e., infants and later-stage fetuses have consciousness but little-to-no experiences, and a frozen you has plenty of experiences but no consciousness, but both deserve some protections to their life.

Oh bother, here come the neurons again. I hope you do not mind if I simply ignore them, because I really am quite sure that they do not matter, and that you are just using them as a proxy for something else that actually does matter. So consciousness (in your estimation) is not enough, but requires (at least) experience as well in order for a life to rise to the level of moral significance? Once again, I am afraid that what is clear to you is not to me. Why is experience signficant? Could you unpack this a bit?

From where I am standing, prior experiences seem another one of those arbitrary features like two legs instead of just one. Can I, in your view, permissibly stab a newborn? If not, is that simply because his (rather unsophisticated) experience of passing through the birth canal counts as enough "experience" to get him over the bar? If so, why is the "experience," such as it is, of the blastula not enough. Sure, it is only a few cells in size, but there are tricellular protists that can respond to stimuli, so it is hardly a foregone conclusion that the blastocyst has no "experiences" if we define that term broadly enough.

More to the point, however, I am still not sure why experiences really are a sine qua non. Imagine a man suddenly struck with amnesia is anesthetized and then, in quick succession, cryogenically frozen. Now we have a human adult with no consciousness and no memory. Sure, he has experienced some things, but he has no access to those experiences. If we kill him, is this killing more significant than the slaughter of a farm animal? It seems obvious to me that this question should be answered in the affirmative, and yet if we do answer it in the affirmative, surely that proves that neither experience nor consciousness are necessary themselves. Rather, what is necessary is the potential for experience and/or consciousness, and as I noted above, even zygotes have these potentials.