Is The Lds Church A Conservative/Republican Church?

[Sky]

I know that, officially, the Church says it is neutral in regards to partisan political matters. It even went so far as to congratulate President Obama on his reelection victory.

Yet why is it so easy for more liberal or Democratic leaning members to sometimes feel like outsiders in the LDS Church? Why does the question seem to continually come up if it's possible to be a good Mormon and a Democrat? What about those Mormons who supported Obama, and are (or try to be) just as loyal to the Gospel as their conservative Mormon counterparts?

Maybe location has something to do with it too...I suppose it's much easier to be a Mormon Democrat in places like Boulder or the west coast than along the Wasatch Front.

Thoughts? I don't want to see this thread shut down; please keep it civil and respectful.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Sky

[TAO]

It's pretty simple actually...

Alot of people in the church feel the Democratic party sometimes emphasizes things which don't... tend to run parallel with the gospel, if you know what I mean. They also tend to be a bit vocal about these things. The Republican party also has parts like this, but don't tend to emphasize it quite as much as the Democratic Party in comparison. It's much easier to be a Republican who doesn't toe their line than it is to be a Democrat, I think. Thus, the church leans Republican, as people tend to go twoards the party which more represents their average values. Naturally, they interpret their values a bit differently, so some will go in a different direction than others, feeling one party is closer to their values than the other.

And then there's also probably the part that there is alot of Mormon Republicans already, thus, traditions tends to make things lean that way. Much like it is for other groups and the Democrats.

In any case, it's not for me to decide how party politics relates with the gopsel; that's for each and every person to decide on their own. As I will decide on my own too. Different people have different beliefs about which principles need to be emphasized in politics.

As for why people fell alone, it's a result of partisanship. There will always be people on one side of the debate or the other, and they tend to not get along the best, usually resulting in the alienation of one or both sides (of course, there are a few exceptions, naturally).

Edited November 20, 2012 by TAO

[volgadon]

Yet why is is so easy for more liberal or Democratic leaning members to sometimes feel like outsiders in the LDS Church?

Because there are a lot of Republicans.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

We should keep in mind that the "Mormon = Conservative Republican" meme is relatively recent, historically speaking. Let's not forget that the new Republican party was founded in part to "prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery", specifically targeting those "radical" Mormons in Utah.

Part of the problem is that the parties have evolved so much over the years that they've both become essentially incoherent and silly. At the same time, I think a great deal can be traced back to the fact that we quite consciously tried to "normalize" ourselves in order to appear "respectable" so we'd be accepted in the United States back when it was still A Thing for people to, uh, run us out via Angry Mob. (The problem is when we cling to what was "normal" a hundred years ago and conflate it with the message of the gospel.)

Suffice it to say that, despite Apostle Benson's remarks, one can be a Liberal Democrat while living the gospel and understanding it at least as well as anyone else. (Though even here in Liberal Oregon, it can be immensely difficult for me to be one of the few Democrats while sitting in classes where offhand dismissals of my party are the norm. I was immensely pleased when I witnessed a little grandma teaching Sunday school read the Newsroom statement to preface the class.)

(Seriously, c'mon, "weird" sexual and dietary practices, radical egalitarianism and a disgust for capitalism [historically, anyway], a positive view of us sudamericanos, emphasis on equal rights/suffrage for women? How is this not a perfectly good definition of a modern "Liberal"? It all depends on how we -- and others -- want to spin the story, and of course we're all so biased that none of us can claim to be perfectly fair and balanced.)

I actually think that in some ways we have more in common with secular humanists, materialists/atheists, and Democrats than traditional Conservative Christians; at the same time, I'd be horrified if we ever moved so far to the Left that Conservatives would feel as alienated as many on the Left (me, for instance) currently often do. We need to find a way to keep a nice pluralistic mix going; at least that way the extremes have people from the opposite end to shout each other down. There must be a way we can have many members and yet one body; at the same time, like Brother Brigham said, "There is too much of a sameness in this community. [...] I am not a stereotyped Latter-day Saint, and do not believe in the doctrine; [...] away with stereotyped 'Mormons'!" We should be welcoming to Liberals; we should be welcoming to Conservatives. We can still work together to try to make the earth as the Garden of Eden, even if we currently disagree about how.

Meanwhile, I am immensely happy that Romney didn't win; not because I liked Obama much better (what support I've given him has been quite grudging), but because a Mormon in the Whitehouse would have raised enormous complications in the mission field. I think we should leave partisan politics alone; certainly the worldwide nature and mission of the Church transcends my country's current preoccupation. (Personally, I tend to find both parties equally repugnant in different ways, and have little desire to be named one or the other.)

Like Nibley wrote in 'Beyond Politics':

The final relief of all our woes lies beyond all worldly politics. So when Joseph Smith says, "My feelings revolt at the idea of having anything to do with politics," he is not being high and mighty but putting his priorities in order. "I wish to be let alone," he says, "that I may attend strictly to the spiritual welfare of the church." Specifically, "The object with me is to obey and teach others to obey God in just what He tells us to do." "For one truth revealed from heaven is worth all the sectarian notions in existence." And so he pursues his way: "It matters not to me if all hell boils over; I regard it only as I would the crackling of the thorns under a pot. ... I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. ... It will not be by sword or gun that this kingdom will roll on."

How should the Saints behave? Brigham Young believed that "the elders cannot be too particular to enjoin on all the saints to yield obedience to the laws, and respect every man in his office, letting politics wholly, entirely and absolutely alone, and preach the principles of the gospel of salvation; for to this end were they ordained and sent forth. We are for peace, we want no contention with any person or government." "Amid all the revolutions that are taking place among the nations, the elders will ever pursue an undeviating course in being subject to the government wherever they may be, and sustain the same by all their precepts to the Saints, having nothing to do with political questions which engender strife, remembering that the weapons of their warfare are not carnal but spiritual, and that the Gospel which they preach is not of man but from heaven." "As for politics, we care nothing about them one way or the other, although we are a political people. ... It is the Kingdom of God or nothing with us." The kingdom is beyond politics -- one way or the other -- that is, it is beyond partisan party politics.

On the last night of a play the whole cast and stage crew stay in the theater until the small or not-so-small hours of the morning, striking the old set. If there is to be a new opening soon, as the economy of the theater requires, it is important that the new set should be in place and ready for the opening night; all the while the old set was finishing its usefulness and then being taken down, the new set was rising in splendor to be ready for the drama that would immediately follow. So it is with this world. It is not our business to tear down the old set -- the agencies that do that are already hard at work and very efficient; the set is coming down all around us with spectacular effect. Our business is to see to it that the new set is well on the way for what is to come -- and that means a different kind of politics, beyond the scope of the tragedy that is now playing its closing night. We are preparing for the establishment of Zion.

Edited November 20, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[DavidB]

While the Church is neutral and some General Authorities are Democrats, you are very likely to find local priesthood leaders imposing their personal political belief on the members in their areas.

Edited November 20, 2012 by DavidB

[canard78]

While the Church is neutral and some General Authorities are Democrats, you are very likely to find local priesthood leaders imposing their personal political belief on the members in their areas.

Thanks for making this point. This is only an American problem (with an 'upweighting' towards the Western states).

22% of Mormon's voted Democrat this year, a 2% increase to 8 years ago when Bush was re-elected. Amazing to think that more Mormons voted for Dubya that Romney

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20327593

Outside of USA there is a much healthier mix. E.g: in UK there is much less 'tribal' politics in the first place. Very few people are party members and it's rarely discussed in the context of the gospel. Members are free to vote on conscience with no peer pressure. The separation of religion and state is considered a very healthy thing. At the last UK election the people I asked at church were voting across the political spectrum. If anything there was a slight lean to the left.

The idea that people would actually insinuate someone else was a 'lower class mormon' for being a Democrat (or even a 'filthy socialist') is offensive.

I found a post on the moderatebutpassionate.com blog that made my blood boil. http://www.moderatebutpassionate.com/2012/11/talking-to-your-kids-about-election.html?m=1

The global church is neutral, many of its US members vote Conservative/Republican. There is a difference. And please remember there are more mormons outside USA than inside. Most of the ones I know celebrated Obama getting a second term.

[canard78]

While the Church is neutral and some General Authorities are Democrats, you are very likely to find local priesthood leaders imposing their personal political belief on the members in their areas.

Thanks for making this point. This is only an American problem (with an 'upweighting' towards the Western states).

22% of Mormon's voted Democrat this year, a 2% increase to 8 years ago when Bush was re-elected. Amazing to think that more Mormons voted for Dubya that Romney

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20327593

Outside of USA there is a much healthier mix. E.g: in UK there is much less 'tribal' politics in the first place. Very few people are party members and it's rarely discussed in the context of the gospel. Members are free to vote on conscience with no peer pressure. The separation of religion and state is considered a very healthy thing. At the last UK election the people I asked at church were voting across the political spectrum. If anything there was a slight lean to the left.

The idea that people would actually insinuate someone else was a 'lower class mormon' for being a Democrat (or even a 'filthy socialist') is offensive.

I found a post on the moderatebutpassionate.com blog that made my blood boil. http://www.moderatebutpassionate.com/2012/11/talking-to-your-kids-about-election.html?m=1

The global church is neutral, many of its US members vote Conservative/Republican. There is a difference. And please remember there are more mormons outside USA than inside. Most of the ones I know celebrated Obama getting a second term.

[canard78]

(I guess I should be more moderate and less passionate... to quote-a-blog)

[Saints Alive]

The simple truth is that conservative ideas are more inline with church values, maybe not perfectly aligned in all areas but in some very important one. Namely; Abortion, gay marriage, and religious freedom. The democratic party has taken steps in all three of theses areas that are counter to what the church teaches. I cannot think of one area where conservatism / the Republican party is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the church.

[inappropriate speculation about others righteousness]

Edited November 20, 2012 by Ares

[ControlFreak]

[inappropriate speculation about others righteousness]

Yeah, I can't fathom why a liberal would feel uncomfortable with the way they are treated in the church...

Edited November 20, 2012 by Ares

[canard78]

The simple truth is that conservative ideas are more inline with church values, maybe not perfectly aligned in all areas but in some very important one. Namely; Abortion, gay marriage, and religious freedom. The democratic party has taken steps in all three of theses areas that are counter to what the church teaches. I cannot think of one area where conservatism / the Republican party is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the church.

[inappropriate speculation about others righteousness]

Are you seriously comparing Mormon Democrats to the people who crucified Jesus? I find that pretty disgusting.

Would you include the wonderful James E. Faust among that group of self-deceivers?

http://en.m.wikipedi.../James_E._Faust

Edited November 20, 2012 by Ares

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

What Liberals and Conservatives are thinking about each other right now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9ZgnVb5Q7I

[CV75]

I know that, officially, the Church says it is neutral in regards to partisan political matters. It even went so far as to congratulate President Obama on his reelection victory.

Yet why is it so easy for more liberal or Democratic leaning members to sometimes feel like outsiders in the LDS Church? Why does the question seem to continually come up if it's possible to be a good Mormon and a Democrat? What about those Mormons who supported Obama, and are (or try to be) just as loyal to the Gospel as their conservative Mormon counterparts?

Maybe location has something to do with it too...I suppose it's much easier to be a Mormon Democrat in places like Boulder or the west coast than along the Wasatch Front.

Thoughts? I don't want to see this thread shut down; please keep it civil and respectful.

Perhaps “it so easy for more liberal or Democratic leaning members to sometimes feel like outsiders in the LDS Church” only when they hold an exclusionary orientation or attitude toward their fellow saints who think differently than or less strongly about certain issues than they do. This is the dynamic that is set up when people feel strongly about their politics, that something has to be set aright, that something is due them, something unfair is being done, etc. I‘ve seen strongly conservative or Republican leaning members act the same way.

The joke about being a good Mormon is based on superficial stereotypes of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. No question, though, positions on issues like free speech (pornography), abortion (choice), same-sex “marriage” etc. are definitely based on how one understands and applies Church values.

I think direct personal loyalty to the Gospel is a separate matter from however it might be consciously or subconsciously expressed through one’s politics or vote for President. Whether conservative, liberal, or partisan, etc., something is bound to be lost in the translation.

[Sky]

At one time I was among those who voted Republican simply because their positions on abortion and same-sex marriage more closely match what the Church teaches. But the trend in the country is quickly moving towards full acceptance of gay rights (including marriage); and Republicans are gradually moving more in that direction too (I'm not necessarily saying I agree with it). But the time will come when voting Republican simply because of abortion and SSMarriage will become less and less tenable. I mean the conventional wisdom says that one of the major reasons why Romney lost this election is because the GOP did not do enough to appeal to minority voters like the LGBT community, African Americans, hispanics, women, or lower-income people. They have to somehow figure out how to expand their tent without alienating their base of religious voters, and I'm honestly not sure how they're going to do it. The GOP will definitely have their work cut out for them if they want to win back the White House in 2016.

And Democratic Party priorities like universal health care coverage, acknowledgement of human-induced climate change and environmental regulation, green energy, ending questionable or unnecessary wars, supporting Unions, and tax rates similar to the way they were in the 1990's (i.e. a higher tax burden on the rich), are things I definitely agree with. The Church hasn't taken a position on these issues, but they just seem like good common sense to me. I see no issue with a loyal Mormon supporting these causes.

[thesometimesaint]

The simple truth is that conservative ideas are more inline with church values, maybe not perfectly aligned in all areas but in some very important one. Namely; Abortion, gay marriage, and religious freedom. The democratic party has taken steps in all three of theses areas that are counter to what the church teaches. I cannot think of one area where conservatism / the Republican party is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the church.

Some members settle their cognitive dissonance by taking the same line of thought as Joe Biden when he was asked about abortion. i.e. Its ok to let other people do evil things, I can support their right to be immoral as long as I personally am not evil.

I wonder if those in the crowd that crucified Jesus thought the same thing? Its ok as long as I am not the one driving the stakes.

Bottom line is no their not.

Abortion:

Church position... While generally opposing unrestricted abortion, there are several categories where abortion is permissible.

Democratic position...It is between the woman, her doctor, and her God.

Republican position... No exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the mother. It is up to government to regulate every uterus.

SSM:

Church position...While generally opposing changing the legal definition of marriage, and classifies homosexual acts as sinful(Not homosexuality itself) The Church supports efforts to end discrimination in employment, housing, medial decisions, and inheritance decisions.

Democratic position... While supporting SSM marriage. It is left up to the individual how to conduct their personal lives.

Republican position..Oppose all efforts to end discrimination based on sexual preference.

Religious Freedom:

Church position. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Democratic position. Takes no position on religion, but tends to appeal to more liberal Protestant/Catholic groups

Republican position...Takes no position on religion, but tends to appeal to more conservative Protestant groups.

[pmccombs1]

The simple truth is that conservative ideas are more inline with church values, maybe not perfectly aligned in all areas but in some very important one. Namely; Abortion, gay marriage, and religious freedom. The democratic party has taken steps in all three of theses areas that are counter to what the church teaches. I cannot think of one area where conservatism / the Republican party is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the church.

Naturally, liberal Mormons believe the opposite, and both sides tend to make a caricature of the other.

Hugh Nibley was a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat, and his view of things placed the vices of avarice, greed, and malice as primary evils because they are sins arising not from the weakness of man's will, but from its strength. These are areas where we willfully rebel against God in order to pursue our own gain at the expense of the "undeserving" (lazy, entitled, etc.) poor. It's the work of Master Mahan--getting gain even if others might suffer for it. God helps those who help themselves. Selfishness is a great virtue. The work ethic. Some of these are things that modern conservatives hold in high esteem, though they quickly run into vice and error. They produce sins against charity.

Although there are clear exceptions, it seems that sins of indulgence arise from the weakness of men. The flesh is weak and temptations strong, and we are foolish and lazy. From this, and not from malice, arise most of the sexual and other vices of excess. These are the things that modern conservatives look down upon as base and wicked, but Nibley pointed out that they are endemic to our fallen bodies and often leave us naturally as we age and mature.

For Nibley, the sin of Sodom that finally sealed their doom was not one of sexual licentiousness, but of greed. It wasn't until they covered their trees and withheld the fruit of the earth from the fowls of the air that God cursed them and destroyed them. They were only being good little capitalists, you know. What we are willing to do in the pursuit of mammon is a thing that reveals our nature and alignment more than our weaknesses reveal it. Our weaknesses simply show that we lack the strength of our ideals, but sins committed in strength show what our ideals really are. These sins are great weights on the scales of justice.

That is one point of view from a liberal Mormon perspective, I suppose. It does not rejoice in the sin that it may tolerate. It seeks to tame those areas where the pride and power of men strip the earth of her resources for the sake of getting gain, but it refrains from prescribing righteousness to condemn the weak and conform them to a straight and narrow path. Let them wander and find their own way. Let them be made strong through their own follies, if need be, so that when they are strong, they may wield strength in charity and not in selfishness.

[emeliza]

It is odd to me as well that the church members are more republican than democratic and I would guess it is the values issue. I think both parties have good qualities and good members, that being said, I always felt that Jesus was more of a rebel who wanted to help everyone around him, even if the people he helped didn't have the same values he had.

Jesus took water from the women at the well who he said was married 5 times and now with a man that was not her husband. She was not a Jew and should have been thought of as unclean, yet he talked to her and then talked to all the people she brought back. In my opinion, this means that even if Jesus didn't agree with the women's sexual issues....he still treated her with respect and wanted to teach her.

Jesus healed the women with the blood issue even thought it also would have been considered unclean to touch someone in that condition.

Jesus told the story of the good samaritan who once again would normally be thought of as unclean and gross and how this was the person who was willing to help others and stand up for what was right.

Jesus told the story of the prodigal son who went out and did all sorts of bad, but was welcomed home with open arms.

I guess after reading the new testament, I sort of think that Jesus would want us to help the poor, the people we might not agree with on lifestyles and sexual preferences about. That he would want us to help the immigrants and the sick. I think Jesus was also teaching that often times, those are the people who will help us.

So when I look at policies, I feel that one party might have values I can agree with, but the other party has the principles I want to live. I had to weigh out which was more important to me. My hope was that I can keep my values while living my principles. So I guess that makes me a liberal mormon now as well.

Edited November 20, 2012 by emeliza

[ControlFreak]

The idea that you can wash your hands from your ideology because you are not the one doing the immoral act is similar yes. Faust was from a different time and I highly doubt he supported gay marriage, abortion, or limiting religious freedom.

I agree that it isn't OK to just allow bad things to happen and just turn a blind eye. However, it really isn't a fair comparison and it is rude and inflammatory to those who would justifiably argue on behalf of their liberal ideals to compare them to those who killed Jesus. To claim there is zero merit to the other side of the argument is just being obtuse, in my opinion. Hence this discussion that liberals are treated poorly in the church...

[Nathair/|\]

As far as I can tell, choosing between Republicans and Democrats anymore is like choosing between Vader and Siddious.

[thesometimesaint]

I think that as we get further away from a Utah centric Church and become a true World Wide Church partisan politics will disappear.

[TAO]

I think that as we get further away from a Utah centric Church and become a true World Wide Church partisan politics will disappear.

I'd think this wouldn't be the case, tbh. Utah Democrats are significantly to the right of their other US counterparts... I'd suspect partisan politics would just get stronger =/.

[thesometimesaint]

Lots depends on what state/country we're talking about. The Saints in most of Europe are significantly to the left of Utah Republicans. Moreover as the Church gets more World Wide it is inevitable that partisan American politics will be much less of an issue.

Few in the Church today remember the songs praising Utah that were in our Hymnal.

[daz2]

"The simple truth is that conservative ideas are more inline with church values, maybe not perfectly aligned in all areas but in some very important one."

I actually agree with this, if it is reworded slightly: "The simply truth is that many LDS conservatives believe that conservative ideas are more in line with church values . . . "

The conservative view of civil rights in the 1960s was to oppose the federal government's prohibiting private individuals from discriminating on the basis of race. Many conservatives believed it was immoral to discriminate on the basis of race, but that was a matter of individual morality and the government should stay out of it. The Church, at the time, issued statements in general support of protecting civil rights regardless of race.

The conservative position today on sexual orientation is that the government should not prohibit individuals from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Virtually all republicans in Congress oppose such a prohibition. Yet the Church officially supports prohibiting discrimination of the basis of sexual orientation in employment and housing.

Most conservatives in the GOP (particularly in Arizona) support an enforcement only policy on immigration, many would support deporting all undocumented residents, including those who were brought to the US as children. Most conservatives oppose a path to legalization. Yet the LDS Church is opposed to enforcement only on immigration, and favors a path to legalization.

As to abortion, the Church is opposed, with some exceptions, as a matter of morality. The Church takes no position on legislative proposals or demonstrations on the matter. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/abortion (last sentence). That is why Mitt could be pro-choice at one time and be a member in good standing.

I am pro-life. There are many other democrats who are pro-life. I belong to a caucus/organization within the party that advocates for a more pro-life positions and officials. A number of pro-life democrats were elected or re-elected to Congress this time.

When the Church says it takes no position on which party to which members should belong, I believe them. I see many faithful LDS in both parties. I also see my Church recently calling a high official in the Obama administration as a general authority, and another Church general authority recently appointed to Obama's faith based council (part of his administration). Both those general authorities, of course, are democrats, as was Elder Jensen, recently made emeritus.

Returning to the opening concept, about whether people perceive conservatism as more in line with LDS values, I do think that most LDS think that way. But not all. I am very comfortable with my God and within my church as a fairly liberal democrat, and I am grateful to be a member of a church that respects the agency of its members on such issues.

[Saints Alive]

Bottom line is no their not.

Abortion:

Church position... While generally opposing unrestricted abortion, there are several categories where abortion is permissible.

Democratic position...It is between the woman, her doctor, and her God.

Republican position... No exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the mother. It is up to government to regulate every uterus.

SSM:

Church position...While generally opposing changing the legal definition of marriage, and classifies homosexual acts as sinful(Not homosexuality itself) The Church supports efforts to end discrimination in employment, housing, medial decisions, and inheritance decisions.

Democratic position... While supporting SSM marriage. It is left up to the individual how to conduct their personal lives.

Republican position..Oppose all efforts to end discrimination based on sexual preference.

Religious Freedom:

Church position. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Democratic position. Takes no position on religion, but tends to appeal to more liberal Protestant/Catholic groups

Republican position...Takes no position on religion, but tends to appeal to more conservative Protestant groups.

I am afraid your bottom line is wrong and so is you mischaraterization of the republican platform.

1. The Republican Party does not support a total ban on abortion, some far right exteremeist in the party might but not the majority of the party.

2. The Republican Party does not support discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but does maintain the tradition definition of marriage.

3. Democratic politicians have done more to restrict religious freedom than any other organization I can think of. We used to have prayers in school and the Ten Commandments at the court house, not anymore.

[sheilauk]

I know that, officially, the Church says it is neutral in regards to partisan political matters. It even went so far as to congratulate President Obama on his reelection victory.

The Church is neutral.

Yet why is it so easy for more liberal or Democratic leaning members to sometimes feel like outsiders in the LDS Church? Why does the question seem to continually come up if it's possible to be a good Mormon and a Democrat? What about those Mormons who supported Obama, and are (or try to be) just as loyal to the Gospel as their conservative Mormon counterparts?

Maybe location has something to do with it too...I suppose it's much easier to be a Mormon Democrat in places like Boulder or the west coast than along the Wasatch Front.

Thoughts? I don't want to see this thread shut down; please keep it civil and respectful.

The answer to your opening question can only be no, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not Conservative/Republican as you are referring to USA politics and this is a world wide church and the Church is neutral.

It may be considered to be conservative - that is slow to change and disliking change, that is the nature of the organisation, but that does not mean it supports a Conservative political party.

Obviously, the members of the Church will have their own political views and, obviously, in the USA, the majority of members, particularly in Utah, identify with the Republican party. That does not make the Church Republican. The identification of church and political party seems to be a lot stronger in the USA than in the UK so I don't think such discussions arise, but that's only in my experience. In any event, I find that, if you want to stay friends, its wise to never discuss politics!