Just wanted to point out that now that the election is over, there is alot of "anti-conservative" rhetoric now on the site for various reasons. It's more "openly" hostile than before.
I thought I would open this thread as the official "Call conservatives NAMES" etc. whatever you feel like saying so that we can keep all the "Name calling" in one place.
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, but if you feel you have alot of anger or venting to do, feel free to do it here.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Do you really think this is helpful?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oh, those conservatives... they're so... conservative !
bah!
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I think it will be a good thread for people to "vent" and get it off their chests. I'm already seeing "Bigot" and "knocks against christians/conservatives/repubs/whatever" flying around like never before.
I would like to keep it localized to one thread.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Aurë entuluva.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Somehow I don't think you're the one that's going to instigate that.
A lot of people are really disappointed, give them a day or so to be really disappointed and this place will return to civilization fairly soon. You won, being called a few names on a message board is a small price to pay.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've noticed the same thing as CS this morning. "Half this country must be idiots" is the message I keep hearing over and over, although not quite so openly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I doubt anyone's disputing that, MPH. I've written and erased a pretty nasty post on the subject about 10 times.
But adding another thread to the mix isn't going to reduce the problem, is it?
Dagonee
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I want to add that I'm not calling people names, and i don't support those who are. I just think this isn't the best time for republicans to be complaining about, well, anything really.
Posted by Phy (Member # 7000) on :
The post-election peace pledge:
Blogger Jeff Jarvis (who's liberal, iirc) wrote the following. It sums up my mood today:
After the election results are in, I promise to: * Support the President, even if I didn't vote for him. * Criticize the President, even if I did vote for him. * Uphold standards of civilized discourse in blogs [and forums!] and in media while pushing both to be better. * Unite as a nation, putting country over party, even as we work together to make America better. -- Jeff Jarvis, in Buzzmachine
I challenge all of us to lay down red vs blue (the political bellwether emblems, not the Halo characters) and be civil. Call a space a spade but be polite enough about it to be able to have an informed discourse. Celebrate your diversity but remember that we are neighbors, not enemies. Let there be a re-unified populace, and let us keep our leadership accountable to us. Let there be healing between us, and a peace. Only then will there be a winner today, and it will be you, and it will be me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
See, I don't know, maybe it helps for me that I start from the assumption that much more than half the country are "idiots". The thing that I'm hoping for is that the people who voted for George Bush and/or belong to conservative organizations for responsible reasons work hard to curb the excesses of the many bigots and such that are also on their side.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
People are in mourning.
Their hopes and dreams of tomorrow are missing.
So they are going through those famous five stages of mourning--
1) Denial & Isolation--These are the folks who haven't conceded yet, or who want to run away to Canada. 2) Anger--and that is where many people are at right now. Luckilly, in the US the Anger appears on boards and on the radio, but not via guns or land mines. 3) Bargaining. This will come soon. Someone will post "We will let Bush be president, but he has to be more centrist...etc." 4) Depression. (Where I'm at now). I really want to go back to bed and sleep until 2008. 5)Acceptance. Give us a day or two, OK?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I just think this isn't the best time for republicans to be complaining about, well, anything really.
So now it's free game on republicans? Why?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think I know what blacwolve was talking about.
Poor winners vs. Poor losers. Which one is actually more obnoxious? At least the losers Lost!
AJ
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Because being a gracious winner includes not expecting people who lost to be happy about it, or to just shut up and go away.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I'm already seeing 'Bigot' and 'knocks against christians/conservatives/repubs/whatever' flying around like never before."
To my knowledge, the one use of the word "bigot" since the election was applied to someone knocking christian conservatives. Is that what you mean?
And, heck, I'll come right out and say it, if indeed no one else has: slightly more than half the country is apparently made up of idiots. I don't think I'm likely to reconsider that opinion, either; these people had their chance to demonstrate intelligence, and blew it.
[ November 03, 2004, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nope. Check out Telp's thread.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
(uh yeah, dkw worded it a whole lot better...)
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, There are three uses of "bigot" on Telp's thread, none of which are characterizing Republicans as a whole. Instead, there are saying that the ban on any sort of union among homosexuals was strongly supported by bigots and wouldn't have passed without the bgiots in these areas. Do you dispute those claims?
Just because there are many people in a group who aren't bigots does not mean that there aren't people in that gruop who are.
edit: Like I've said before, the way to fight the polarization by the immature people on different sides of an issue is for the more mature people to stand up for what is right. If you are unwilling to admit that a significant part of the support people give to the republicans is fueled by bigotry and that this is a problem, I don't think you're going to be part of the solution.
[ November 03, 2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:throws half red, half white baseball out into the forum:
KerryGore, I choose you! Backlash attack, now!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It was pointing out that obviously Tom's assessment of the situation concerning the uses of the word bigot is wrong. I certainly wasn't going to say it in Telp's thread, but not everyone who voted for that intitiative, as wrong-headed as it is, was a bigot.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, but I'm willing to bet that a majority of them are. In a purely hypothetical and realistically impossible case, if we administered a test that accurately measured negative prejudicial reactions to homosecuals, I'm pretty sure that a majority of the people who voted for the ban would have a relatively high score. Do you disagree?
Again, saying that some of the people who were for something aren't bigots doesn't provide justification for ignoring the fact that many, in this case probably most, of the people were.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
It just gives me warm fuzzies to know that people on here that I consider to be close friends, in turn consider me to be nothing more than an idiot.
FG
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Look, it's not justification for anything. Tom was attempting to make the point that the word "bigot" had only been used in one direction since the election. I provided a counter example.
In your hypothetical perfect test, I would bet many would score high. But I wouldn't bet on a majority doing so.
Dagonee
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:It just gives me warm fuzzies to know that people on here that I consider to be close friends, in turn consider me to be nothing more than an idiot.
I don't think anyone does. I think a lot of people are hurt and angry right now, and are probably saying things they will regret the implications of later.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This isn't a new line of thought for Tom.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Well, the next four years will either prove him right or prove him wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, shoot, I thought the last four years had proved me right, twinky.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And this is exactly why the next 4 years won't prove anything.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
FG, if it's any consolation, there have been people here I like, and people in the nation at large, much more so, that consider my vote to be one for the moral decay and destruction of our civilization.
You may be stupid, but I'm eeeeeevil!
-Bok
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Bok!
(now we're back to both being just Americans)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, The "some of the people aren't bigots so we don't need to consider the many that are" line is not a new one either for this issue or for you specifically. It's the standard response to talking about the huge role anti-homosexual bigotry has in the whole "defense of marriage" movement and one of the biggest problems with that movement. It's something that needs to be addressed but one I don't see anyone who uses that line of reasoning addressing.
We are in far more danger, both as a country and as a moral society, from the sanctioned bigotry than from homosexuals. It's something that should be of concern for all decent people, even if they themselves don't support homosexual marriage. And yet, as far as I have seen, it goes almost unopposed by the people who have moral reservations about homosexuality.
There's a story about motes and beams and I think this is perhaps even more important when applied to groups that you belong to. Progress and unity comes when people put principle over ideology. Admitting the faults in many of the people who support what you support and working against these faults in the responsible thing to do. There may be legitimate reasons from your perspective to be against homoexual marriage, but have the decency to admit that many of the people who are against it are the ideological descendents of people who opposed mixed race marriages and help work against these people. Unless, of course, you disagree with me and think that supporting and condoning bigots is a small price to pay to prevent the ills of homosexual marriage.
[ November 03, 2004, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The doom and gloom and cries of idiocy are pretty tacky.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Admitting the faults in many of the people who support what you support and working against these faults in the responsible thing to do."
I run into this all the time from pro-lifers. I'm pretty strongly pro-life, but I disapprove of a number of their tactics and philosophies -- which often causes genuine surprise and dismay.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Coburn, Keyes, and Bunning.
You can take three far left candidates, and I just don't think they are going to be as mean as these three. Keyes was recruited and Coburn and Bunning won.
For all of this talk about Christianity, these are three mean people. You can talk all you want about Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, but all she wanted was to find a way to make Universal Healthcare work and he is a rich guy who fights for poor people.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Poor winners vs. Poor losers. Which one is actually more obnoxious? At least the losers Lost!
Dunno, AJ. If you saw the speeches by Alan Keyes and Barack Obama, we had a good example of "poor loser" vs. "good winner."
From Obama's victory speech:
quote:"In the ultimate equation, we will not be measured by the margin of our victory," Obama told more than a thousand jubilant supporters crowded into a downtown hotel ballroom Tuesday. "But we will be measured by whether we are able to deliver concrete improvements to the lives of so many people all across the state who are struggling."
(I don't remember if it was in his speech, but he made a point of thanking and acknowledging retiring conservative Senator Peter Fitzgerald's "service" and "integrity" in at least one interview I watched.)
Poor Loser:
quote:Keyes, a 54-year-old former U.N. ambassador whom the GOP recruited three months ago as a last-minute substitute, ran a scorched-earth campaign focusing on abortion and gay rights. He was defiant in defeat, quoting the Bible and lashing out at a state GOP that he felt abandoned him.
"To all of those who've come back and equivocated, to all of those who lied and did not deliver on their promises in the Republican party, to all of those who heard the truth and could not bear to breathe it, let them know that Alan Keyes has said tonight ... we have just begun," said Keyes, who did not call Obama to concede defeat and broke with tradition by speaking after Obama.
(For the most part, Illinois Republican Party members hope Keyes moves back to Maryland ASAP. Denny Hastert is about the only major Republican that seems pleased at the prospect of Keyes hanging around.)
[ November 03, 2004, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Coburn, Keyes, and Bunning.
You can take three far left candidates, and I just don't think they are going to be as mean as these three. Keyes was recruited and Coburn and Bunning won.
For all of this talk about Christianity, these are three mean people. You can talk all you want about Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, but all she wanted was to find a way to make Universal Healthcare work and he is a rich guy who fights for poor people.
Sure the democrats have work to do to retool their message, but I can walk with a little more pride, knowing that we are still the good guys. Kucinich is a geeky, and Sharpton is a jive turkey, and Howard Dean is a special case, but these are good people who like people.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:The doom and gloom and cries of idiocy are pretty tacky.
I agree that the "cries of idiocy" are inappropriate. However, I think it is highly appropriate for people to express to their friends their feelings of concern, fear, uncertainty, or sadness over their perception of the future. I don't think that the fact that the subject of those feelings is political makes it less appropriate. You may find it "tacky," but I submit that it is better than not talking about it, even if nothing more than some small catharsis is achieved.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The "some of the people aren't bigots so we don't need to consider the many that are" line is not a new one either for this issue or for you specifically. It's the standard response to talking about the huge role anti-homosexual bigotry has in the whole "defense of marriage" movement and one of the biggest problems with that movement. It's something that needs to be addressed but one I don't see anyone who uses that line of reasoning addressing.
We are in far more danger, both as a country and as a moral society, from the sanctioned bigotry than from homosexuals. It's something that should be of concern for all decent people, even if they themselves don't support homosexual marriage. And yet, as far as I have seen, it goes almost unopposed by the people who have moral reservations about homosexuality.
There's a story about motes and beams and I think this is perhaps even more important when applied to groups that you belong to. Progress and unity comes when people put principle over ideology. Admitting the faults in many of the people who support what you support and working against these faults in the responsible thing to do. There may be legitimate reasons from your perspective to be against homoexual marriage, but have the decency to admit that many of the people who are against it are the ideological descendents of people who opposed mixed race marriages and help work against these people. Unless, of course, you disagree with me and think that supporting and condoning bigots is a small price to pay to prevent the ills of homosexual marriage.
Good freakin' grief. My whole point in all this is that if you simply write off everyone who opposes gay marriage as bigots, you will be unable to convince the ones who aren't that your side is right. And the combination of those of us who already support civil gay marriage and those who oppose it but aren't bigots is enough to get it passed.
I haven't said we don't need to consider the bigots. I haven't said that many of them aren't bigots. I've simply said that flinging the name about, especially without taking care to make the distinction between those who are and those who aren't, is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
[Edit: In other words, if people were "considering the many" bigots, I wouldn't have an issue. Instead their not considering them. They're not trying to identify which ones are, nor are they considering those who aren't.]
I've tried over and over and over and over again to try to get people to understand a significant portion of the anti-civil-homosexual marriage camp. So far one person on my side of the issue has expressed any understanding of this.
You can't refute an argument you don't understand. Labeling an argument, or those who support it, with such a loaded word is an almost guaranteed barrier to understanding that argument. And that lack of understanding is an almost guaranteed barrier to refuting the argument.
Dagonee P.S., motes and beams, on this issue at least, don't apply to me for obvious reasons.
[ November 03, 2004, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
For me, it isn't that Bush won that is upsetting. Honestly, he made this current mess and he now has 4 years to dig in and make it worse or clean it up. 2008 won't be the shining continuation of a bad thing as I have doubts Cheney will survive the next 4 years due to health concerns, let alone attempt to run and carry on the Bush legacy. If Kerry would have won, there is little he could do differently with Iraq, other that put taxes back up so that we can at least afford to pay for the darn thing.
The upsetting thing is that the Republican ideal won across the board. The biggest slap is the gay marriage amendment, which is the laregest public movement to disenfranchise a group of people since slavery was the law of the land. While not as detrimental in terms of, oh, being a slave the real effect is now an air of open hostility towards a group of Americans who have harmed no one or broken no laws. Simply making something you don't like illegal doesn't make it a crime by any real standards. I don't like the color orange but making an amendment to outlaw it doesn't make its presence harmful towards anyone.
This open environment of hostility to all things that fly in the face of "compassion" is heartwrenching and sickening and to be honest, pretty embarrasing. It is the maturity level of "no girls allowed!!" written all over a tree fort put together by 10 year olds but the effect is obviously more profound and harming towards others. While the gay couple down the street hasn't harmed me, my state voting to essentially margianalize them has certainly harmed them. And that is something to proudly proclaim across the land?? In a time of increasing poverty, jobs shipped off shore, a war and yes, still no cure for cancer we can hold this up as the barometer fro the American people? If that is what is proud and something you could look a child in the eye say "this we did" then I sincerely wonder what is "Christian" or "Compassionate" about the dominant party in America.
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:the laregest public movement to disenfranchise a group of people since slavery was the law of the land
Funny. That's exactly how I feel about the expansion of abortion rights.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And I'm pushing a line that I've consistently advanced for quite some time, which is that the citizens of America, and of the world in general, are not as whole particularly mature or good at making decisions. People have a right to have opinions, but most of these opinions for most of these people are poorly formed. I support populist government (when liberally constrained by a system of individual rights) for it's very beneficial effects in regards to preventing tyranny, but I think that it's foolish to pretend that it is anything other than a might makes right system where might is largely derived from the opinions of immature people, who, among other things, will shock someone to death because someone with slight trappings of authority told them to or watch a women get beaten to death over the course of a half an hour and not do anything, even call the police, until it is over.
Are most Americans idiots? I'd say yes, for most reasonable definitions of the word idiot. It's well within people capabilities not to be so, and I think that this development is hurt by our cultural taboo of acknowledging that most people do and think very stupid things.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well advance your line without assigning views to me I haven't expressed, please.
Dagonee
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
As someone who really didn't want a second Bush term, I agree that it's inaccurate and, well, idiotic, to call Bush supporters "idiots."
More importantly, it's ultimately self-destructive and self-defeating.
When you go ahead and just label the other side as "idiots" you free yourself from a couple of considerations:
You don't have to consider that the Bush team was effective in reaching conflicted voters in a way that made them drift - not necessarily with enthusiasm in many cases - to their side.
You also don't have to consider the harsh reality that the Kerry team was less than effective in reaching those conflicted voters. It's essential to understand both aspects of the ultimate choices voters made unless all one wants to do is have 2008 look exactly like 2000 and 2004.
*not celebrating today by a longshot, but I figure it's more important to concentrate on how one works with (or against) current realities than writing off over half the people who voted as unreachable.
[ November 03, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I think you are severly underestimating the role that bigotry plays in people's decisions making processes, both in general and in this specific instance. In the case we're talking about, the ban passed by 10% of the vote. Are you suggesting that if you discounted the votes of people whose main motivation was anti-homosexual bigotry, that the ban would still have passed?
Coming from the perspective who believes that there is consistently good evidence to suggest that at least 85% of the American population who self-identify as religious displays a significantly higher level of prejudice than people who don't self-indentify, I'd say that, in this case, you'd might be able to get maybe 10% of the total vote if you discounted these bigots.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, but I find that conclusion to be pretty much BS, so I don't have to account for that in my thinking.
Regardless, it doesn't make your assignment of views to me correct or appropriate.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But you also won't look at the evidence, so how are we to have a rational discussion about the difference in our opinions?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
fil, nothing was made illegal that was before legal. In reality these laws substantiated the existing laws and traditions of the states they were enacted in.
Gay marriage doesn't exist in those states and never has. Those that voted for the ammendment didn't take anything "away" from people that had them before.
Marriage has, is and due to the ammendments will continue to be the Legal "union" of a Man and Woman period.
It's not that it "wasn't" before and all of the sudden now is. It was, and will continue to be.
The same avenues open before for legal rights is still open.
There just is not going to be a law forcing anything other than marriage to be recognized on the state level.
I for one see the vote as something different. I expected it to fail in many parts where it was proposed due to it's "exclusivity" clauses. That they passed, clauses in tact tells me this:
The american public will not be dictated to by the government. If the majority believes something to be right or wrong, they will not allow a court to tell them otherwise.
I for one voted for the Ammendment because I am for the recognition of only a Man and Woman as "Marriage" BUT more importantly, as a message to the government that the courts have no business or right in their actions of the last year in states where "gay marriage" was instituted by the bench against the will of the people.
In my opinion there's a right way and a wrong way in a democracy to get what you want. Having a court FORCE your views on the majority of people who disagree, is a sure way to get the eletion results we saw yesterday.
If the election from 2000 told us anything it's that the sure way to "galvanize" your opposition is to tell them that although they are the "Majority", it doesn't matter because your view is invalid, but the minorities is.
It's about Compromise, and there wasn't any last year, hence the results of this election were without "compromise" as well in the opposing factors.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But you also won't look at the evidence, so how are we to have a rational discussion about the difference in our opinions?
I have looked at the evidence. I disagree with it on methodological, definitional, and philosophical grounds. I also don't care that much about it.
Dagonee
[ November 03, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And I'm not sure, which views have I assigned to you that you don't share? The only thing that I've tried to do is describe your behavior, which I'm pretty sure fits my description. Have I missed the thread where you said "not all these people are bigots" and then gone on to talk about how these bigots are a serious problem for your cuase. Or any point where you've given serious acknowledgement and consideration to the problem posed by these bigots? If so, my view of you is defnitely inaccuate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Those that voted for the ammendment didn't take anything 'away' from people that had them before."
Odd, then, that you felt the Amendment was necessary.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
CStroman: incorrect, several of these amendments made privately given partner benefits illegal. There are many companies that have been offering partner benefits in perfect legality.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No you didn't. Unless you followed it up outside our discussion, you dismissed it on scant inspection, on specious grounds for what I strongly suspect are ideological rather than principled reasons.
As I've said before Dag, I don't just say crap. When I presented that argument, it was because it's built on what I think are firm grounds. If you think that the dismissal that you gave in that thread was on firm grounds, you and I have very different opinions as to what constitue such.
[ November 03, 2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Tom CStroman did address that.
He said he felt people were speaking out against judicial activism that forced something agains the will of the people. That would indeed be a reason for the amendments to be necessary - to prevent that same thing from happening in those states.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Chad, that gay marriage wasn't legal beforehand isn't an impressive argument.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Okay, Chad, you asked for it.
::Weilds cat o' nine tails::
The only question is should I wear my Devo hat or not?
-Bok
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: CStroman: incorrect, several of these amendments made privately given partner benefits illegal. There are many companies that have been offering partner benefits in perfect legality.
No, it didn't give the government the right to force those benefits to be offered by everyone.
As a private employer I can offer benefits to same sex couples. The ammendment won't change that or make it illegal.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
But any government employee could conceivably be denied benefits under certain interpretations of the amendments.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No you didn't. Unless you followed it up outside our discussion, you dismissed it on scant inspection, on specious grounds for what I strongly suspect are ideological rather than principled reasons.
As I've said before Dag, I don't just say crap. When I presented that argument, it was because it's built on what I think are firm grounds. If you think that the dismissal that you gave in that thread was on firm grounds, you and I have very different opinions as to what constitue such.
Squick, I read the whole freakin' book you reccomended, months and months ago. Seriously, stop trying to tell me what I do and don't believe, or do and don't do.
Believe it or not, I don't bounce all my conclusions off you, nor feel the need to explicate all my reasons for coming to a contrary opinion.
quote:And I'm not sure, which views have I assigned to you that you don't share?
The only thing that I've tried to do is describe your behavior, which I'm pretty sure fits my description. Have I missed the thread where you said "not all these people are bigots" and then gone on to talk about how these bigots are a serious problem for your cuase. Or any point where you've given serious acknowledgement and consideration to the problem posed by these bigots? If so, my view of you is defnitely inaccuate.
You have consistently said I argue with you because I think your "anti religious." I don't.
In this thread you've accused me of advocating the position "some of the people aren't bigots so we don't need to consider the many that are." I haven't.
Finally, you seem to think that these bigots are a serious problem for my cause. I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean for preventing gay marriage, which happens to coincide with theirs, then you're wrong about it being my cause. If you mean for ensuring equal civil marriage rights for homosexual couples, then that is my cause. But I have yet to see someone say, "Oh my God! You're right, I am a bigot!" and change their mind because people start calling them names.
I have seen (and participated in helping) people change their mind after listening to their views on the subject and responding respectfully and rationally to those views.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
That's a big "if" because so far no one has legally challenged benefits given to "significant others" of same sex relationships.
Because it "could" happen, without any substantiating evidence or precedence that it's happening in any government, is a very weak argument as well IMHO.
[ November 03, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Chad, isn't that similar to the fears people have that often lead them to support anti-same sex marriage amendments? That the government might persecute Christianity, when there is nothing to support that assertion on any objective basis?
Anyway, quiet you, it makes lashing you on the back much more difficult!
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's a very good point, Bok.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I'd be very interested in discussing the problems that you has the the The Nature of Prejudice.
By your cause, I'd say that in specific regards to this issue, it would be the idea that homsexuality is wrong and in the more general thing of supporting Christianity/Catholicism. And yes, I did mistate your stance before and I appologize for that.
As I've said many times, I think that the world would be a much better place if people who claimed to christians acted much more in line with Christ's message. I think that this would most likely involve a redefinition of christianity by the people who acutally hold it in a mature way to emphasize the more difficult parts of Christ's message. Bigotry is directly against Christ's teachings, but it makes up one of the major forces of pretty much all American "Christian" social/political movements. This isn't just bad for the country, it's bad for the community of Christians and for the bigots themselves.
Maybe I've been too free in assigning motives to you. I'll definitely try to keep an eye on cases where I might be doing that in the future.
But again, everytime I've seen the idea that many anti-homosexual people are bigots come up where you were involved, you immediately went to "not all people who believe homosexuality is a sin are bigots", even in contexts where no one suggested that that this was true. As far as I have seen, it's a standard tactic from deflecting attention away from an aspect of the campaigns against homosexuality that I think is very important.
One of the big things I despise about contemporary politics is how people have taken to wrapping good sounding labels around things that have nothing to do with what these labels, and are often pretty odious. We had a thread a little while back where we talked about how "traditional values" and "family values" and other labels have become the front for things that many people who are actually concerned about these things would not agree with. The movements that I'd like to see are the decent people who believe in these things working to reclaim them and deny their misuse. I think that this same problem faces American Christianity.
When I've brought up my concerns about this, you've pretty consistently told me that I don't understand why people do these things. I'm leveling the same criticism at you. Some people do them for the resaon you claim, but many others do them for much lower reasons. Acknowledging this is a very impotant step in working against it.
So, I'll ask again, do you really think that less than 10% of the vote on the gay union ban came from people who were for the ban for primarily bigoted reasons?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: That the government might persecute Christianity, when there is nothing to support that assertion on any objective basis?
Actually, yes there is. The fact that the courts in some states "legalized" it proves exactly that.
There's the precedent staring us right in the face.
Also the "anti-religious" movement in this country is HUGE when it comes to government.
You currently have a "10 commandments" issue before the supreme court as we speak (being argued in a room with a mural of Moses and the 10 commandments facing the judges themselves no less).
You have a state flag in California missing a historical mark because it's "Chrisitian".
The litigation against religion isn't an "if" it's what is actually happening RIGHT NOW.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The litigation against religion isn't an 'if' it's what is actually happening RIGHT NOW."
Yeah, right. They're litigating against religion. I keep forgetting how the religious in this country are such an oppressed minority, unable to get any of their chosen officials into office or pass any of their favorite bills.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Right..it's not like a person could get elected President or anything, based on the evangelical largely vote...
Christianity doesn't = religion to everyone...there are plenty of other religions, and they have a vested intrest is maintaining the separation between government and religion.
There is a difference between persecuting a religion and refusing to allow one religion to promote itself at the others expense.
(BTW, I am Episcopalian myself)
Kwea
[ November 03, 2004, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Actually, yes there is. The fact that the courts in some states "legalized" it proves exactly that.
There's the precedent staring us right in the face
So...anyone, anywhere...even in a state you don't live in....who disagrees with your religious views and doesn't agree to live within their rules is attacking your religion?
Bull.
Kwea
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:You currently have a "10 commandments" issue before the supreme court as we speak (being argued in a room with a mural of Moses and the 10 commandments facing the judges themselves no less).
I'm staying out of the election discussions today but this keeps getting dragged out as a definitive argument and it bugs me. Pay attention, class.
The various figures depicted in the Supreme Court represent the history of law-giving. The doors to the building have representations of the Shield of Achilles, a Roman praetor, the law teacher Julian, Emperor Justinian, the Magna Carta, the Statute of Westminster, Lord Chief Justice Coke, and Chief Justices Marshall and Story.
The friezes you mentioned depict the following:
Menes (c. 3200 B.C.) First King of the first dynasty of ancient Egypt. He unified Upper and Lower Egypt under his rule and is one of the earliest recorded lawgivers. Menes is shown in the frieze holding the ankh, an Egyptian symbol for life.
Hammurabi (c. 1700s B.C.) King of Babylon credited with founding the Babylonian Empire. He is known for the Code of Hammurabi, one of the earliest known legal codes. The first stone of the Code depicts him receiving the law from the Babylonian Sun God.
Moses (c. 1300s B.C.) Prophet, lawgiver and judge of the Israelites. Mosaic Law is based on the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. Moses is depicted in the frieze holding two overlapping tablets, written in Hebrew. Commandments six through ten are partially visible.
Solomon (c. 900s B.C.) King of Israel and renowned judge. His name, meaning “figure of the wise man,” has become synonymous with “judicial wisdom.”
Lycurgus (c. 800 B.C.) Legislator of Sparta. Lycurgus is credited with being one of the reformers of Sparta’s constitution. He left Sparta after convincing the Spartan leadership not to change his laws until he returned, but he never did.
Solon (c. 638–558 B.C.) Athenian lawgiver. He was appointed archon, an officer of state, and was charged with remodeling the Athenian constitution in 594 B.C. He was instrumental in codifying and reforming Athenian law, often revising the laws of Draco. His name has come to mean “a wise and skillful lawgiver.”
Draco (c. 600s B.C.) One of Solon’s legal predecessors in Athens. Around 620 B.C., he committed an Athenian code of laws to paper for the first time. His code included many strict penalties and death sentences, often for what seemed to be minor offenses. Thus, the word “draconian,” meaning harsh or cruel, is derived from his name.
Confucius (551–478 B.C.) Chinese philosopher whose teachings stressed harmony, learning and virtue. Within 300 years of his death, the Chinese State adopted his teachings as the basis for government. Although officially abandoned by the Chinese government in 1912, Confucianism continues to have an influence throughout the world.
Octavian (63 B.C.–14 A.D.) or Augustus. First Emperor of the Roman Empire. He brought widespread reforms to many facets of Roman life. He supported the concept of using previous opinions of leading jurists to aid in determining new disputes.
Justinian (c. 483–565) Byzantine Emperor from 527 until his death. He ordered the codification of Roman law and published Corpus Juris Civilis. This work was instrumental in preserving Roman law and encompassed what has become known as the Justinian Code.
Muhammad (c. 570–632) The Prophet of Islam. He is depicted holding the Qur’an. The Qur’an provides the primary source of Islamic Law. Prophet Muhammad’s teachings explain and implement Qur’anic principles. The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet.
Charlemagne (c. 742–814) or Charles I (the Great). King of the Franks and Roman Emperor. Charlemagne was reportedly an avid student who became an eloquent speaker of several languages and supported learning and literature throughout his realm. Under his leadership, most of Western Europe was united by 804 becoming the foundation for the Holy Roman Empire. He was also a reformer of legal, judicial and military systems.
King John (1166–1216) born John Lackland. King of England from 1199 until his death. His policies and taxation caused his barons to force him to sign the Magna Carta. This document, depicted in the frieze as a scrolled document in his hand, is regarded as the foundation of constitutional liberty in England.
Louis IX (c. 1214–1270) King of France who was canonized as St. Louis in 1297. He led the 7th and 8th Crusades and created the first court of appeals known as the “Curia Regis” or “King’s Court.”
Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) or Huig de Groot. Dutch scholar, lawyer and statesman. He is depicted holding De jure belli ac pacis (Concerning the Law of War and Peace), one of the first books on international law, which he wrote in 1625.
Sir William Blackstone (1723–1780) English law professor and jurist. He wrote Commentaries on the Law of England (1765–1769), which has had a major influence on English and American law.
John Marshall (1755–1835) Fourth Chief Justice of the United States, from 1801 to 1835. His 1803 opinion in Marbury v. Madison stated that the Supreme Court of the United States had the authority to determine the constitutionality of a law, establishing the power of judicial review for the Court.
Napoleon (1769–1821) Emperor of France from 1804 to 1815. He ordered and directed the recodification of French law into what became known as the Code Napoleon or Civil Code. Published in 1804, this code formed the basis for modern civil law. Napoleon, at St. Helena, is reported to have said, “My glory is not to have won forty battles; for Waterloo’s defeat will destroy the memory of as many victories. But what nothing will destroy, what will live eternally, is my Civil Code.”
The East wall frieze is located directly above the Bench and focuses on two male figures that represent the Majesty of Law and the Power of Government. According to a letter from Weinman to Gilbert, the tablet between them symbolizes the first ten amendments to the Constitution, also known as the Bill of Rights. The allegorical figures standing on either side of the central figures symbolize Wisdom, on the left, and Justice, on the right. Weinman described the figures grouped to the right side as the Safeguard of the Liberties and Rights of the People in their pursuit of Happiness and those on the left side as The Defense of Human Rights and Protection of Innocence.
Moses is indeed represented on the wall of the Supreme Court. He is depicted as one of many. If every court builidng in the land wanted to depict the Ten Commandments as one of many sources of present-day law, there would be no problem. I don't see how a boulder-sized version of Moses' tablets can be anything but a pretty decisive indication of preference.
[ November 03, 2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Chris, that has been brought up more than once here, which is why I ignored it.
Once someone has "made up their mind" the actual facts only get in the way.
Great post though, much better than the last one I saw.
BTW, every time this conversation has happened around me someone mentions that Moses isn't the only one included, and he is included in a non-religious manner....so it is hardly a little-known fact.
Just an inconvient one, I suppose.
Kwea
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I've probably been the one that mentioned it, but the repetition bugged me enough to dig in and find out exactly what's there instead of just saying there's a bunch of people there.
Be warned, I've copied this and will whip it out whenever this claim comes up again.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
So religious iconography is allowed as long as it's not religious?
So saying "In God We Trust" or the Pledge of Allegiance "Under God" aren't religious (since no specific deity is defined as "God") and therefore are a non issue.
Glad we cleared that up.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
So I have no problem with religious references in secular law as long as they're not exclusive. Our legal system is not based solely on the Christian bible, something the representations in the Supreme Court take great pains to point out.
The motto and the Pledge are different arguments, which I'd be happy to take up again in a separate thread.
My point here was not to discuss the relevance or desirability of religion in government, but to take a single inaccurate but madly persistent claim and disprove it.
[ November 03, 2004, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: So I have no problem with religious references in secular law as long as they're not exclusive.
And the pledge, motto, etc. are not thus no problem.
"God" is an ambiguous term. It could be Allah, Jehovah, Yourself if you are Atheist, Krishna, whatever you consider to be the "supreme being" of your life, that's "God".
And all you proved was that Religious Iconography in the context of "Historical Representation" is acceptable.
So are you fighting to have the small "Cross" put back on the California State Flag?
Somehow I doubt it.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:And all you proved was that Religious Iconography in the context of "Historical Representation" is acceptable.
I might say it's visa versa... but whatever. You could say to someone that has a feeling of awe at looking at the Galaxy or at the Rocky Mountains for the first time as a religious experiance... or feeling the holy ghost. I just call it recognizing beauty and feeling awe. Iconography is iconography first and not stricly religious.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I agree telp. It's all subjective. Something might be offensive to me, but not others. Or vice versa.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: So are you fighting to have the small "Cross" put back on the California State Flag?
??? I think the cross may be on the flag of one of the cities in the state of CA but a cross has NEVER been, to my knowledge on the State flag of California. The state flag of CA has a bear and a red star, first done by the Bear Flag Republic http://www.50states.com/flag/caflag.htm
The state's history however is intimately connected with the Missions in CA. Many public school children in CA have to build models of a mission as part of their state history projects in fourth grade. The oppression and near slavery of the Indians is discussed as well as the Spanish conquistadores. It's history, not just "religion" and as a result I believe the cross should stay (I believe it was in L.A. County that the city or county had a cross on their flag) But for the entire state there has never been a cross on any state flag in CA.
[ November 03, 2004, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Started a new thread on it, didn't want to drag this one down.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
AJ, that is exactly the point. The lawsuit that had the "cross" removed targetted the "cross" only. Not the Godess, not the Bull (if your a Mithraist it's sacred) nothing else was.
The cross was the target and it has been officially removed.
That is a blatant attack on Christianity itself.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yeah but you had your *facts* wrong, Chad. You said the cross *had* been removed when in fact it hadn't. You obfuscated the issue rather than clarifying it and I had to go and dig out the flags because the misinformation you were spewing was so effing bad.
To your credit I realize you've been trying, and you've vastly improved. I even find myself agreeing with you on occasion but it's crap like this that you pull that really gets on my nerves.
I mean I *agree* with you in this case, that the cross should stay on, but you were shooting your own argument in the foot. I don't want you helping me make the case I support if you screw it up so badly, cause it reflects badly on the position I hold.
AJ
[ November 03, 2004, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
By the way, Chad, you may want to note that, while the new seal will not include the cross, it will also not include the goddess. At least, this is what I heard on the news this morning. I didn't hear whether or not the bull would be included.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Do they have prototype designs out yet saxon? I tried googling and couldn't find anything. Though maybe I wasn't googling the right key words.
AJ
And... it ain't a bull
quote: The tuna represents the fishing industry of Los Angeles county and the championship cow is for the dairy industry. Pearlette is her name.
[ November 03, 2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I think they're going to have to scrap the whole seal. You have a FISH (oh nos! Christians have those on their CARS!) and the COW is a Sacred Hindu animal...so how about just a blank white flag.....what? Oh that's right...it would be racist because it's white....ok...let's make it white and black....What? Ok that disenfranchises Hispanics, Native Americans and the Blue Guys from the Las Vegas show (who I think are from California).
I mean...when does it end?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
White and black could represent yin and yang too... AJ
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: the laregest public movement to disenfranchise a group of people since slavery was the law of the land
Funny. That's exactly how I feel about the expansion of abortion rights.
Dag, apples and oranges. And if there is an amendment that is offered and passed that guarantees abortions for everyone, I will mourn along with you.
But other than being hot-button issues in both parties, they are in all other ways unrelated. If so, I am curious how they are connected?
fil
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Do they have prototype designs out yet saxon? I tried googling and couldn't find anything. Though maybe I wasn't googling the right key words.
I don't know for sure. They just mentioned that the new seal would have--if I remember right--an American Indian woman instead of the goddess. I think I might remember them implying that the new seal had already been designed, but I don't know for sure, and I wouldn't know where to go looking for it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
Bok!![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Iconography is iconography first and not stricly religious.