I am often concerned at the overt criticism of politicians against each other. The public denigration of individuals and their policies, though, is clearly based upon their preferred political persuasion and not on rational debate. There is little generosity, minimal encouragement and few compliments found to pass across the political divide. As politicians try to outmanoeuvre each other and leverage any advantage, they actually reveal a similar attitude in the arguments of many people against Christians; start with the idea that your opponent is wrong (even dangerous) because of their contrary belief and then go on the attack to strengthen your position.
This insidious and banal approach to interpersonal relations dismisses sound logic and then cloaks it with a thin veneer of ill-conceived ‘rationality’ that barely covers a solid dose of lambasting and vitriol, especially from those given courage by similarly-styled atheists such as Richard Dawkins. Of course, many people will discuss faith responsibly, but generally only do so when honestly pursuing truth. Others merely ignore the claims of Christianity because of its uncomfortable implications.
Naturally, the antidote is to willingly argue on merit for growth, ‘playing the ball and not the man’. Passion for debate, for principle and for the betterment of others are surely more meritorious emotional channels in a world that so often prides itself on sophistication and advancement despite the paradox of so much primitivism by the rationally-challenged.