Welcome to Gaia! ::

I have to agree, the second stanza is in need of a little fine tuning. I liked the three stanzas after it, the repetition of "sometimes". It gave it nice continuity and flow... kind of reminded me of a chorus.

Now, I have to admit, I'm a bit confused by your motivation. Both sides, right and left, liberal and conservative, have cynics. In fact, the conservatives are stereotyped as being the most cynical as they see everything as immoral or communist (ie Glenn Beck). Each side has its flaws, each side has fears and issues and is working for themselves more than anyone else. Yes, I would agree with your poem that sometimes moderation is good. Hell, if we could get to a middle ground between the two sides, things would go a lot better. So I guess if your poem is reaching for that middle ground, that works, but from your intro it seems like it's meant to be an attack on the liberal left.

I can understand that. I'm not much of a poet, so I haven't been able to express what I was rambling on about very well.

First and foremost, I want to make it known that this is NOT a political poem.
What I'm arguing against in this poem is not liberalism, or leftist ideals; it's something a little harder to define, and far more definitively insidious.

What I take issue with is neither a particular set of ideals, nor a particular moral outlook; it's more of an attitude. The references to cynicism, conservatism and social liberalism are only in the poem because I've noticed the attitude I'm talking about shinning forth most abundantly and obnoxiously in the kind of people who make a celebration of both their cynicism and their leaning toward the political left.

It's not that I'm suggesting that cynicism or social equity are bad things in themselves at all. No, in fact I carry a hefty dose of both, myself. It's just that in the certain combinations of the two can I find the most illustrative example of the attitude the poem is about.

For example: people who claim to be 'cynical' of the assumption of competency that comes with political power, and use this cynicism as a guide to formulate unchecked pseudo-leftist notions of social liberation without considering the consequences (and then have the tenacity to presume that they know best). I'm not saying that the political right, or Christians don't have their fair share of such attitudes and pretensions (faith is, after all, a desperate extension of very similar delusions), but it's a very specific strain of it that most gets on my nerves, and is most prevalently arising these days.

The religious angle of the poem has to do with another common example of where the attitude crops up commonly, which is in arguments between theists and atheists. In these situations, although the theist will often be arguing fallaciously, it's usually the theist's attitude that irks me. It's an uncomfortable mix of ardent (almost militant) resolve, and delusions of superiority.

It's hard for me to define why that feeling is different (or necessarily more malicious) than good old-fashioned zealotry, but my gut reaction is that it is.

I hope that gives a better understanding of what I was trying to get across with my poem, and thank you for the kind words and your constructive criticism. I'll have to try and find a way to express what I mean more clearly, without muddying the allusion to Plato's cave. :]

if you at all care to have discussion on these issues, please PM me. smile I REALY want to debate this with you now!

Hey, it's turning out to be a fairly interesting debate so far.
Would you mind if I post what we've discussed so far as a thread, to hear what other people's opinions and thoughts are?

http://www.gaiaonline.com/guilds/viewtopic.php?page=1&t=22565843#328328119
There we go.
It's an interesting topic.
I'll admit I hadn't given it this much thought when I wrote the poem razz

You claim to have no political views, but you just summarized secularism neatly.

If half the people in government have one view on the separation of church and state, and the other half hold the opposite view, it sounds to me like compromise is EXACTLY what's needed.

Though, frankly, the way I see it, pure Disestablishmentarianism and secularism are unfeasible. Although they technically exist (in that a political candidate is not allowed to hold a direct political agenda tied to any particular religion), their role is to represent a body of people, many of whom do base their moral code of a religious text or religious teachings. It would actually be unconstitutional for them to not represent these views in parliament.

But like I said, this is NOT a political poem.
It's about people, not about governments.

I know it draws upon macroscopic concepts like religion and politics, but you have to try and internalize them. A good general hint for reading this poem is to pretend every word of it (not just the obvious ones) relates directly to you, not the world around you.