Why do discussions about politics and religions tend to be passionate?

I am more concerned about the why and the how than the what, because everybody knows about the what if they have functioning eyes and ears. It's the why and how that help us arrive at explanatory answers.


I don't profess to have a definite answer to the question in the heading, but the below is my own tentative, groping thinking about the question, in the hopes of receiving feedback:

Politics and religion define who we are and how we think of big issues concerning existential values, instead of basic everyday worries like food, shelter, sex, and yes, love. The positions we take regarding politics and religion reflect our self-conception, our level of understanding and intelligence, and our values. It takes a very strong man emotionally and intellectually to change his views about politics and religion once he realizes he was in the dark, in the wrong side of reason and logic. Such a man must be governed by a respect for truths and verifiable knowledge, and an embrace of fairness in his dialogues about politics and religion with fellow men and women. We must always ask ourselves if we and the person(s) we are having a conversation is such a man (generically speaking, otherwise I would be accused of being sexist), otherwise the conversation is yes indeed boring and fruitless and ends with no enlightenment, but with hurt feelings and festering rancor. That's why ironically the shortest way of finding out who a person is, is by having a conversation with him about politics and religion. He would invariably reveal his true color and character by his views and the way he presents them.

There is one paradoxical thing about being human. Despite sharing many commonalities, humans are indeed different from one another. The differences may come from genetics, self-determination/will, and yes indeed experiences. We try to understand others from their actions and words, and from our own self-projection.

Some humans simply let the primary issue of survival and other mundane matters such as power and glory override nobler and perhaps unique human impulses such as compassion, self-respect, and search for truths via logic (employed even in the analysis of experiences).

Some humans simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of irrefutable facts and truths. All they care is to win points in an argument by playing victim (especially when they cannot refute the points made by others); falling back on trite, stock phrases of escape; and being sarcastic and insulting and vulgar. Those humans are not only intellectually weak, they are also emotionally fragile and indeed in the process becoming less than human in the eyes of impartial observers. To be human is to admit defeat and to acknowledge one's thinking process is simply wrong when the evidence presented and logic dictate such is the case. Persistence in trying to prove one is still right by grasping for straws is pathetic obduracy, and not necessary an indication of firm conviction.

To be truly human is possessing an ability to know right from wrong, truth from falsehood, especially in the discussions of politics and politics where values play a murky but strong role.

Roberto Wissai/NKBa'