Reply With Quote
Cue the obligatory boutons response to the affirmative involving the words "repugs", "pitbull ", "christian" and "dubya".
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main
When in 1983 Ronald Reagan characterized the Soviet Union as an "evil empire," the reaction from his betters was swift. Writing in the New York Times, Anthony Lewis called it "primitive"—and wondered (naturally) what the Europeans would think. A headline in Time referred derisively to "The Right Rev. Ronald Reagan." All agreed on one thing: this kind of black-and-white moralizing had no place in American politics.
Now cut to today, where moralizing about the ugly motives of the American people has become common. Whether it's a federal judge declaring there exists no rational opposition to same-sex marriage, a mayor railing against those who would like a mosque moved a few blocks from Ground Zero, a Speaker of the House effectively likening the majority of her countrymen who did not want her health-care bill to Nazis, or a State Department official who brings up the Arizona law on immigration in a human-rights discussion with a Chinese delegation, the chorus is the same: You can't trust ordinary Americans.
In his ruling on California's Proposition 8, federal district court Judge Vaughn Walker gives us the most dressed-up version. Not only does he find the state initiative upholding traditional marriage uncons utional, his opinion maintains that those who disagree—the majority of California voters—can be motivated only by bigotry.
Among his many findings of "fact" are gems such as these: "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians." "[T]he evidence shows beyond debate that allowing same-sex couples to marry has at least a neutral, if not a positive, effect on the ins ution of marriage." "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples."
At least when Ronald Reagan invoked the evil empire, he was talking about a totalitarian system. He also took pains to distinguish between the Soviet system, which he thought irredeemable, and the Russian people, whom he believed wanted the same things we do.
Judge Walker, of course, is not alone. In New York City we have a mayor who preens how an Islamic Center built close to Ground Zero is exclusively a test of religious liberty. Surely it is possible to respect religious liberty and nonetheless believe that with a bit of neighborly solicitude, we might reach a workable accommodation by moving the center a few blocks. But Mayor Michael Bloomberg prefers to see the 61% of New York residents who disagree with him as people who ought to be "ashamed of themselves."
Are there these feelings and expressions on the right? And are some Americans bigots or racists? No doubt. Yet it is striking that the language and examples here do not emanate from the activist fringe. They come from those representing some of our leading ins utions.
When asked about the legitimacy of grass-roots opposition to the health-care bill, for example, Nancy Pelosi dismissed protestors as people "carrying swastikas." Her counterpart in the Senate called them "evil mongers." How convenient. If turning up to protest a health-care bill makes someone a Nazi or an evil monger, there's no point to having a real debate, is there?
These kinds of remarks, moreover, tend to be amplified by a press corps that seems to share many of the same prejudices. Look at Internet listserv JournoList. In this group, participants felt free to urge various outrages—notably, manufacturing a charge of racism for purely political purposes. They did so, moreover, comfortable that no one would find such suggestions beyond the pale.
Take the Washington Post. When the JournoList emails hit, we learned that the reporter assigned to cover conservatives actively loathed them. Sometimes it spilled out, as when he tweeted that opponents of same-sex marriage are bigots. (He later offered a limited apology.) Does it not say something when the hometown paper of our nation's capital cannot seem to find a reporter who can control his contempt for beliefs held by millions of ordinary Americans?
American history confirms the need for leaders willing to make strong moral criticisms of their opponents and society. Certainly we could not progress without them. Still, the most successful—Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, et al.—have been those who appealed to the decency of their fellow citizens.
As the controversy over the planned Islamic Center near Ground Zero escalates, we have had many secular sermons on the need to recognize that the vast majority of Muslims should not be confused with the terrorists. No argument there. But how much more fruitful our own debates might be if the Judge Walkers, Mayor Bloombergs and Speaker Pelosis could extend that same presumption of decency to the American people.
Cue the obligatory boutons response to the affirmative involving the words "repugs", "pitbull ", "christian" and "dubya".
You forgot "magic negro".
Thanksfully we have a cons uion that protects the rights of the minority from the majority.. we have come a long way and it is a good thing.
Actually, the Cons ution doesn't "give" you rights -- those are God-given, natural rights that you are born with. The Cons ution protects you from government, not the "majority".
"Still, the most successful—Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, et al.—have been those who appealed to the decency of their fellow citizens."
Repugs, conservatives, tea baggers, and right-wing hate media are continuing in the great tradition of "appealing to the decency of their fellow citizens"
"Judge Walkers, Mayor Bloombergs and Speaker Pelosis could extend that same presumption of decency to the American people."
Who says they don't?
And don't confuse extremist fringe tea baggers carrying swastikas and racist posters as "the American people"
weaksauce
.....Actually, the Cons ution doesn't "give" you rights -- those are God-given, natural rights that you are born with. The Cons ution protects you from government, not the "majority".
"rights -- those are God-given, natural rights that you are born with"
total myth, total bull . Rights are whatever society allows you to have, rights protects.
Do you ers EVER get anything "right" ?
I agree that rights are natural. Whether God-given or otherwise. But the Cons ution protects you from government AND the majority infringing on those rights.
Pelosi is an idiot. Nothing new there.
But I didn't think either Bloomberg or the Judge really called anybody bigots. That's certainly a prejudiced opinion from the OP. He's certainly en led to it.
On a separate note, I sometimes wonder if DarrinS' only source of information are opinion pieces from conservatives, former-Bush-speechwriters and the like.
Don't forget teh youtubes.
This post is quite ironic.
The OP is about people attacking others' motives, instead of their ideas. And you go and do the exact same thing.
I don't agree with the sentiment, but the concept is firmly rooted in the preamble.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
I don't know why that should bother you, Darrin. You do it yourself all the time. In the Thornton thread you made a very broad ascription of motive. Ditto the Ground Zero mosque. The examples are pretty easy to find.
Glass houses>>living in>>throwing stones>>
A day in the life, eh?
"they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"
That's frickin piece of paper.
If the rights aren't protected and enforced BY MAN, the Creator is irrelevant.
Is habeas corpus God-Given? If so, they why doesn't the US respect it in the case of GITMO and other untried, long-term prisoners.
I think this pretty much exemplifies what the left thinks of the Cons ution.
DoI isn't even a law.
Wrap yourself in the flag and now the Cons ution, the last refuge of scoundrels. As if every uneducated NRA gun nut and tea bagger and podunk Oath Keeping sheriff were a Cons utional scholar, when most don't even have a ing HS diploma, never mind a law degree.
Ah yes, the great minds of Harvard and Yale have done wonders for this country.
Yes, there are American bigots. That being said, there are American non-bigots. See that is why this whole stereotyping thing doesn't work. It is really difficult to assign a single trait to any group because you will likely be wrong in some or many cases.
True. That's why it is especially embarassing, when someone like former president, Jimmy Carter, gets on TV and calls people racists that dare criticize Obama.
Are humans bigots?
This is how we end up with morons like Sarah Palin; jackasses like DarrinS reveling in their own stupidity and anti-intellectualism.
Don't get it twisted there guy, despite Bush going to Yale because of his daddy's connections, the average Yale grad, young republican included, has done far more for the advancement of America than your podunk, HS diploma having ass has. Or you sitting on a GED?
I will buy that.
I don't, however need examples from both sides going back and forth because "carter said xyz" , "oh yeah? well cheney said abc", "rahm emmanuel said this" "Sarah Palin said that."
Each "side" of this American conflict can produce examples of wrong doing by the other side. No need to bring that up again.
See post #20 in this thread. replace the word American with humans . .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
