<p>
That sure sounds like a pretty broad brush to me, Hayden.</p>
<p>
And it feels to others of us that the liberal left in this coutry wants us to all be like them. It all depends on your perspective.</p>
<p>
A very little research will point out that blacks were oppressed in all parts of the coutry with virually equal opportunity. It was not the exclusive bastion of the south. Yes, the south had slavery until 1865, a few decades after it faded from the north, but you’ll find the more recent forms of oppression were spread across the country as witnessed by the riots in various northern and western cities in the 1960s.</p>
<p>
If he were to do so, who would be the offending party? I’d say that anyone who would openly ridicule someone’s deeply held belief in that way is the one who is intolerant and grossly insensitive and hopefully his mother would whack him on the back of his head for showing such little class and respect for other’s beliefs.</p>
<p>I actually find much of this discussion a bit elitist. Harriet Miers is not someone I would have chosen but that does not disqualify her from sitting on the Supreme Court. </p>
<p>So she is a conservative Christian? Replace conservative Christian with Catholic or Jew and how would it sound? Most all of the justices who have sat on the court were religious in some way shape or form. The most recent appointee, John Roberts, is Catholic. Not much was made of it, perhaps because he is viewed as “qualified”.</p>
<p>Is it because Harriet Miers attended SMU instead of Harvard? What would qualify her?</p>
<p>At the end of the day it is my contention that we are traveling down the road of stealth candidates because the senate did not confirm Judge Bork. That prevented Clinton from nominating a candidate like Larry Tribe. All the candidates since Bork have been viewed differently by those who nominated them. It is really can we hide enough about them to get them through . . . not the best course to take in my opinion.</p>
<p>Harriet Miers should be viewed based upon her qualifications, not her religious affiliation. Let’s see how she responds on that front and let’s leave her religion out of it.</p>
<p>I agree with you, Eagle. I’m getting increasingly annoyed with the beltway pundits with whom I generally agree. The snobbery is very unattractive, and something I’ve frankly associated more with the other side. An eye-opener, to be sure.</p>
<p>This thread represents to me the absolute worst of CC. Mini and several others repeated facts, and quoted history til they were blue in the face. People either ignored the facts, or commented on parts of their posts that they appeared to misrepresent wildly. And I mentioned history from the 1950’s that was absolutely, indisputably true. (“Broad brush” FF? Absolutely. If you can show me how the south of the 1950’s does not fit anything I related, you should just publish it and re-write history for the rest of us who only lived through it.)</p>
<p>What I’m seeing is dogma disguised as thoughtful discourse, and something that CC is plagued with - an amazing inability to actually read the plain sense of the English language. </p>
<p>I’m out. Goodbye and good luck. I hope our students learn to read better.</p>
<p>Hayden, your statement was outrageous and over the top. Just admit it, and move on. If you really don’t get it you’re the one who has trouble reading plain English, even if it flows from your own fingertips.</p>
<p>It makes me feel pretty good to know that there are people like driver, fundingfather, bandit, eagle and others, who take individual liberties and by extension personal beliefs seriously. To the best of my knowledge, none of them are overtly religious themselves and yet they seem to understand that there is nothing that goes any deeper in a person then their beliefs, and if the right to freely express themselves, without ridicule or social prohibition, is abridged or demeaned then individual liberty, at a very profound level, has been abridged and demeaned. That there are public places in which this occurs can only be viewed with sadness by anyone who cherishes libertycertainly, such prohibitions were not part of the thought that went into either separating this country from England, or providing liberty to the people it offered self-determination.</p>
<p>Bigotry directed at peoples faith seems too well tolerated by too many here, and elsewhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does that mean they will support gay marriage, or a woman’s right to chose?</p>
<p>I really can’t speak for anyone else; but I certainly support anyones right to act as they are and in concert with what they believe (short of criminality), no matter what that may believe or feel about themselves as a human being. </p>
<p>At the same time, I’m not sure it is incumbent upon anyone to recognize other’s beliefs or feelings as ‘true’ or false, but rather to recognize that they are entitled to have them and that, in an open society, express them when and where THEY THEMSELVES feel it is appropriate.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I do not expect the federal or state government to endorse (or ‘establish’ :))someones particular beliefs or feelings as being the RIGHT ONES beyond social conventions. For instance the schools should not teach, or allow the teaching of Catholic dogma as ‘truth’, but they should allow individual catholics to express themselves at school.</p>
<p>I dont expect that the government will endorse the Lords Prayer as being metaphysically accurate, merely publicly permissible. The same would apply to any other subjective social agenda.</p>
<p>I have always supported a woman’s right to chose. In fact, I believe the only people with a right to even comment on it are women of child bearing age. </p>
<p>And I could care less who lives and sleeps with who, or what. I do care that as a single parent, my company doesn’t allow me to designate my retirement benefits to the support of my child, but I could designate them to another adult “partner”. As my dad told me every night at the dinner table as a child, “no one ever told you the world is a fair place”. Gay marriage carries far beyond the ability to live together in peace, it involves a great many legal and financial issues. The ripple effect is potentially huge, as retirement plans and medical plans could become insolvent. It also stretches the definition of a partner to points unknown. Gay marriage, get a preacher and go for it. Legal union, I’m not sure.</p>
<p>So, Woody, where does the Pledge fit in to your philosophy as stated in post #90 - with the terminology “under God” mandated by Congress, and the participation of schoolchildren required by local government?</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>My son is a Canadian. We live in Jersey. Everyday they say the pledge at his school and he just stands respectfully…we taught him that–respect. It comes in handy when confronted with uncomfortable, disorienting or unusual situations. He seems to survive it without breaking down in tears or feeling like a repressed minority…as you know, no one is required to say the pledge in part or in whole. By the way my son is 7 years old. My daughter was the same, she is now a freshmen in college.</p>
<p>It seems that many here believe that either their children or children in the abstract can’t handle a true diversity of ideas, cultures or philosophies…my wife and I take a different view–we like diversity, real diversity not the candy-coated kind that anticipates the offense soon to be reveled in. </p>
<p>We believe in a liberal education unlike many who call themselves liberals.</p>
<p>As Bandits dad wisely instructed him:
“no one ever told you the world is a fair place”. And I would add, we are better for it.</p>
<p>Woodwork:
Thank you for your post #90 above. To me, it’s a reasonable attempt to present your point of view. It deserves the courtesy of a measured response.</p>
<p>Oddly enough :), I find myself in agreement with most of what you said.
As you said, I really can’t speak for anyone else, but I suspect that others here may be in agreement as well.</p>
<p>“…I certainly support anyones right to act as they are and in concert with what they believe (short of criminality), no matter what that may believe or feel about themselves as a human being.”</p>
<p>Absolutely.</p>
<p>“At the same time, I’m not sure it is incumbent upon anyone to recognize other’s beliefs or feelings as ‘true’ or false, but rather to recognize that they are entitled to have them…”</p>
<p>Again, I agree.</p>
<p>“…and…express them when and where THEY THEMSELVES feel it is appropriate.”</p>
<p>Here is where we may have an honest disagreement, or at least require a clarification. I personally would have no beef with someone praying in, say, a public park. A prayer group holding hands and reciting a prayer? No problem, if they do it at normal volume; I in turn will do them the courtesy of staying quiet as I pass them by. Kids praying individually at school? No problem. Prayer group at school? I PERSONALLY have no problem with this, as long as they don’t make a federal case out of it, no pun intended. (My understanding of the constitution is not deep enough to know if this last example is/ has been ruled illegal - I’m simply stating a personal opinion here).</p>
<p>I <em>would</em> have a problem if a situation developed at school where my (say) agnostic child was actively pressured to get religion in one form or another. After all, if she isn’t running around declaring that God hasn’t been proven to exist and that you should shed your belief in God/Christ/Allah/pick 'em immediately, it’s reasonable to expect a reciprocal courtesy. </p>
<p>“I do not expect the federal or state government to endorse (or ‘establish’ )someones particular beliefs or feelings as being the RIGHT ONES beyond social conventions. For instance the schools should not teach, or allow the teaching of Catholic dogma as ‘truth’, but they should allow individual catholics to express themselves at school.”</p>
<p>I agree almost absolutely, with one caveat about ‘express’. If their expression is a statement prefaced with “It is my belief that…”, I’m fine with it. I wouldn’t like to have people state their personal beliefs as absolute fact and thrust it in my face, just as I don’t do the same to them.</p>
<p>We’ve tried to bring our daughters up to respect the beliefs of others, even if they don’t agree - it sounds like you’ve brought your son up to similar ideals. As you said/implied, diversity is a wonderful thing.</p>
<p>Hey, maybe Rodney King was onto something after all… :)</p>
<p>Please forgive the off topic here!!!</p>
<p>driver:
I forgot to thank you for your explanation of your (sort of) conservatism. I still don’t understand it, but I appreciate your responding. </p>
<p>I’m just so confused by conservatives. I think a lot of people are. The emphasis on fiscal responsibility, but the reality of the Bush administration budget problems. The emphasis on small government, but the hugeness of the Bush government. The emphasis on individual rights and a non-intrusive government, but then events like Terry Schiavo. The emphasis on states rights and then Ashcroft’s attempts to overturn Oregon’s Death with Dignity act. The phrase “compassionate conservative” with the terrible growth of poverty and uneven distribution of something as fundamental as health care. The emphasis on the moral highground with the unseemly and/or illegal behavior of so many prominent conservatives. The constant invocation of “praying to God,” and then such contradictory policies as the death penalty and sneeking torture. There are so many more things I hardly know where to stop.</p>
<p>I’m truly not trying to post a laundry list here. I just can’t seem to engage anybody I know who is a conservative in explaining this stuff. Most of my friends who are conservatives, are sort of the non-thinking, Rush Limbaugh types. </p>
<p>But I’m really trying to understand from someone who is obviously smart and thinking about this stuff how these contradictions can be explained? What is the true essence of being a thinking conservative these days?</p>
<p>I think you miss the fundamental premise, conservatives can think and don’t blindly accept everything the party utters. </p>
<p>I believe the principal purpose of the federal government is to protect the USA. Most other uses of our tax dollars, including welfare programs, are not in the charter (constitution) and should belong to the states. </p>
<p>I think Terry Schiavo was a completely private matter that no one should have had a voice in. </p>
<p>I believe abortion is personal decision.</p>
<p>I think Bush should leave religion out of government. </p>
<p>But, I can’t sanction an administration that strips the defense of the USA to fund welfare programs. Therefore, I vote to protect and preserve the constitution.</p>
<p>bandit:
How, then, can you then support a president who now beats all presidents but Lyndon Johnson at domestic, non-military spending?</p>
<p>Optimizerdad,</p>
<p>I am happy to see that you found my post inoffensive;)</p>
<p>I more or less agree with your estimation of them. peace</p>
<p>Let me give you a different take on prayer in schools. Because of the unique social characteristics of schools, elementary and HS especially, prayer is inherently divisive. Yes, so easy for the non christians to not participate or leave the room. And so stigmafying. Any group prayer is inherently coercive. as it by its very nature is a tool to identify those not a member of the group.</p>
<p>Personally, after living in Texas for a few years in the mid 90s, I came to feel that prayer in schools was as much about identifying nonbelievers as it was about prayer.</p>
<p>Someone said “no one is required to say the Pledge in schools” but in fact that’s not true. Teachers are often required to lead their students in the Pledge. </p>
<p>Someone else suggested that my son would be rude to offer his prayer to the flying spaghetti monster–that’s precisely my point. You can’t know who will be offended by any “official” prayer—so it’s my contention that there should be no such situation.</p>