Peer Pressure

[veteran]

-- Anything to support that opinion? Because I find that downright silly. I have never even heard of a Christian demanding that the Constitution defend them from being criticized. Please.
My experience has been that Christians expect to take heat and have never expected. the Constitution to protect them from criticism.
They do however (and rightfully so) expect the Constitution to protect their right to speak their opinion and practice their faith.

Interesting - it seems to me that you, Veteran and religusnut complain the most about being called intolerant......and how the constitution should somehow protect you from having to treat people equally so that you will not have to be called bigoted for discriminating against certain groups.

That is an outright LIE.

That is suggestion that Foreigner, myself, and Religusnut use the U.S. Constitution to protect ourselves in treating people unequally, and a direct slander calling us bigots, all without the least proof of such a claim.

I took an oath to defend the Constitution of The United States of America in serving my country and its people so people like you could have the right to freedom of speech. I fought against Socialist Communism and its ideals and will continue to do so in honoring my allegience to the flag of Stars and Stripes and oath to the Constitution of The United States of America.

That same Constitution does NOT protect you from criticism of your ignorance and outlandish remarks.

 

[veteran]

It seems to me that agreement within Christianity is often used to determine whether a person is a Christian or not. If you agree with the loudest person in the room or on the board you are ok for the moment, but just like any kicker in the NFL, you are only as safe as the last kick you make. Any controversial topic posted can be used to reevaluate your status as a Christian.

On the same note, I think many Christians believe that the Constitution should protect against disagreement and social persecution from nonbelievers, rather than simply protect against criminal prosecution or discrimination. Being a Christian sometimes includes being labelled intolerant or close minded - it happens - I am not sure why there is shock and protest from Christians about it. I think this is what Christ meant when he said that we would face rejection. The answer is not to get all mad about it and deny the accusations. In fact, this reaction often results in a 'persecution complex', which is used to justify all Christian behavior - they are going to reject us anyway, right?

Instead, I believe the answer is to turn the other cheek and exercise our sanctification by continuing to love the person who is socially rejecting us.

Aspen isn't directing that statement in bold to just any Christian, but specifically towards Foreigner, Religusnut, and myself, as documented in post #6 in this thread. It is unfounded statement with no support in its accusation against Foreigner, Religusnut, and myself.

My Rebuttal: I think Aspen has a problem with the mere 'existence' of the U.S. Constitution and for what it stands for and protects. Many Socialists-Leftists in the U.S. consider our U.S. Constitution as outdated, and needing to be either rewriten or discarded to fit more modernistic views. That 'SEEMS' to be the stance Aspen has also, the real attack being towards the U.S. Constitution. Just so happens that Socialist-Leftist ideals are closely allied with Communist idealsim. And that's fact, not opinion.

Aspen's statement, "agreement within Christianity is often used to determine whether a person is Christian or not" may point to problems Aspen has encountered with other Christians elsewhere than on this forum that disagreed with his/her liberal leftist-socialist views as aligning with Christian Doctrine per The Bible. That points to Aspen most likely having a persecution complex, and certainly not those of us Apsen is trying to single out here.

In the Vietnam War era in which I served, Leftist-Socialist ideas and Communist ideas were one and the same, and subversive to the Constitution of The United States and the American way of life per both The Preamble and The Declaration of Independence. Still today Communist-Socialism is anti-American, and anti-Christian. "How is that?," some might ask.

See the Politics thread section: I'm going to start a thread laying it out. For the younger generation here, I especially recommend you read it.

 

[aspen]

Aspen isn't directing that statement in bold to just any Christian, but specifically towards Foreigner, Religusnut, and myself, as documented in post #6 in this thread. It is unfounded statement with no support in its accusation against Foreigner, Religusnut, and myself.

I see you've decided to speak for me. Not that you care, but I happen to view all three of you as unique - all having different ideas.

My Rebuttal: I think Aspen has a problem with the mere 'existence' of the U.S. Constitution and for what it stands for and protects. Many Socialists-Leftists in the U.S. consider our U.S. Constitution as outdated, and needing to be either rewriten or discarded to fit more modernistic views. That 'SEEMS' to be the stance Aspen has also, the real attack being towards the U.S. Constitution. Just so happens that Socialist-Leftist ideals are closely allied with Communist idealsim. And that's fact, not opinion.


I love the Constitution. I simply happen to believe it applies to all Americans, not just White Christians. Are you really resorting to calling my a Socialist-leftist? I think this speaks more to your Fascist-Rightist perspective - the moderate middle looks leftist from your position. I have perspective on the right and the left - I have never seen you have any perspective on the right - not at all.

Aspen's statement, "agreement within Christianity is often used to determine whether a person is Christian or not" may point to problems Aspen has encountered with other Christians elsewhere than on this forum that disagreed with his/her liberal leftist-socialist views as aligning with Christian Doctrine per The Bible. That points to Aspen most likely having a persecution complex, and certainly not those of us Apsen is trying to single out here.


I can only speak from my experience. You know, a great way to find out if you know what you are talking about regarding Aspen, is to ask Aspen.

In the Vietnam War era in which I served, Leftist-Socialist ideas and Communist ideas were one and the same, and subversive to the Constitution of The United States and the American way of life per both The Preamble and The Declaration of Independence. Still today Communist-Socialism is anti-American, and anti-Christian. "How is that?," some might ask. See the Politics thread section: I'm going to start a thread laying it out. For the younger generation here, I especially recommend you read it.

I am not a socialist, or a communist - sorry.

 

[aspen]

That is an outright LIE.

Dost thou protest too much?

That is suggestion that Foreigner, myself, and Religusnut use the U.S. Constitution to protect ourselves in treating people unequally, and a direct slander calling us bigots, all without the least proof of such a claim.

No. I did not call you or anyone else a bigot. What I said was that the constitution does not protect you or anyone else from being called a bigot or racist or any other name as a result of your viewpoint - it only protects you from legal prosecution for you viewpoints. I think some people believe that freedom of speech, for example, should protect people with nutty points of view from peer pressure.

I took an oath to defend the Constitution of The United States of America in serving my country and its people so people like you could have the right to freedom of speech. I fought against Socialist Communism and its ideals and will continue to do so in honoring my allegience to the flag of Stars and Stripes and oath to the Constitution of The United States of America.

Awesome. I have tremendous respect for all veterans who risked their lives for our freedom. I thank you deeply and welcome home. I have been trying to honor veterans with a thread on this board simply out of respect for something I am not physically capable of doing - serving my country in the armed services.

That same Constitution does NOT protect you from criticism of your ignorance and outlandish remarks.

That is my point - and I am under not illusion that it does. What I do know is that I will not be arrested for my outlandish points of view by the government.

 

[veteran]

Interesting - it seems to me that you, Veteran and religusnut complain the most about being called intolerant......and how the constitution should somehow protect you from having to treat people equally so that you will not have to be called bigoted for discriminating against certain groups.

Evidently, you have a memory problem too Aspen.

In your language above, your making the false accusation of our thinking to use the Constitution as protection from being called a bigot "for of discriminating against certain groups".

That is a direct accusation of discrimination against certain groups.

That's some more or your Leftist-Socialist thinking, because it is indirectly saying that you think the Constitution should not stand in protecting my rights of free speech to speak out AGAINST any group I so choose.

It's also misuse of the idea of 'discrimination', since there's a major difference between discrimination of one's ACTS verses the discrimination against an individual. You need to learn that distinction in your thought process.

So to be specific, I hate the act of homosexuality. God does too. I hate the act of anti-God rhetoric. God does too. I hate the act of false idol worship. God does too.

But I don't hate the 'person'. Neither does God.

I want those who do such things to repent away from doing those acts. God does too.

And you'll have a difficult time trying to convince me you're not a Socialist. You've got the Socialist rhetoric from the Far Left. And in my era, Socialist idealsim was closely aligned with Communist-Marxist idealism. You know what? It still is, and that kind of idealsim does not align with God's Word, never has, and never will.

 

[veteran]

Aspen isn't directing that statement in bold to just any Christian, but specifically towards Foreigner, Religusnut, and myself, as documented in post #6 in this thread. It is unfounded statement with no support in its accusation against Foreigner, Religusnut, and myself.

I see you've decided to speak for me. Not that you care, but I happen to view all three of you as unique - all having different ideas.

I wasn't speaking for or at you with that post. And I really don't care to speak to you either. I think you've got discrimination issues against white people.

I love the Constitution. I simply happen to believe it applies to all Americans, not just White Christians. Are you really resorting to calling my a Socialist-leftist? I think this speaks more to your Fascist-Rightist perspective - the moderate middle looks leftist from your position. I have perspective on the right and the left - I have never seen you have any perspective on the right - not at all.

That's good you love the U.S. Constitution. And it is the Constitution of The United States of America, not just any Constitution. And face it, your speech does align with leftist-socialist idealsim. You even admitted to being a Leftist in other threads. But I don't think you actually know what Facism really is. You probably don't even understand where Socialist idealism comes from either.

And yes, you have been given my perspective on both the political Left and the political Right (your short memory again). I covered it in a post about how both the Democratic and Republican parties are of the same boat, both working together. And I've voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and Independents in the past. It's because I vote my conscious, not according to a political persuasion. But I suspect you always vote Democrat-Left, correct?

I am not a socialist, or a communist - sorry.

I don't think you really understand what either is, which could be part of the problem of where you picked up some of their ideas, like "the end justifies the means" idea.

 

[aspen]

You know, Veteran, I cannot make you like me or understand what I am saying. You seem to need to believe I am a liar and a communist or whatever - I've clarified as much as I can and you still pick apart every word I say to fit me into your narrative of who you believe I am. You cannot even recognize that I thanked you for your service in the military. So all I can do is wish you and your family a Happy Thanksgiving and leave you to you opinion

 

[Foreigner]

"Interview any black person and you will hear about the racism that is embedded in our justice system." - aspen

-- Are you really so clueless that you would make my point for me? You asked for an example of a Christian being arrested for being a Christian, implying that since they aren't that proves they do not face discrimination or oppression.
The same stamdard for blacks and gays shows what a lame statement that was for you.




"It is a bit ridiculous to complain about a nativity scene - however, having Christian items in public places is a privilege!" - aspen

-- Really? And who grants or removes that privilege? Based on what?
Please don't embarass yourself by saying "diversity gives them the right." Diverstiy means more should be included, not less. Get a clue.
You again skip the whole "not abridge the free practice thereof" portion. But you pretty much have to. That is the only way your position flies.




Likewise I have remained silent even though my daughter has been told they can no longer sing Christmas Carols in their school's Christmas Concert that refer to Jesus, Baby Jesus, Christ, God, Angels or the like. As a matter of fact, the "Christmas" concert is now called the "Holiday" concert so as not to offend non-believers and Muslims in our community. Strangely enough a large number of Jews have come forward with the Christians demanding to know why they can't sing songs related to a government-created holiday. A holiday that the government itself calls"Christmas." If I remember right Congress voted it into existance and the President Grant signed it into law. - Me


"A privilege, which is not being honored any longer. It is funny to me that you cannot see that getting to display Christian symbols or sing Christian songs in a multicultural society is a privilege." - aspen

-- Christmas is a national holiday in America, signed into law in 1870 by President Grant. It is a legal, recognized holiday in the United States.
Sorry but is is a law and not a 'privilege.' Try again.





So tell me, do you really think that part in the First Amendment gives a school the right to restrict a recital song, a graduation speech, etc. just because of their faith? The powers that be sure do.
So basically, if it has to do with Christianity, the no prohibiting of free exercise and the no prohibiting of simple free speech no longer applies to you. - Me


"All or none." - aspen

-- Your answer is strawman drivel. The First Amendment means everyone. It states 'religion' not 'Christian religion.' Your answer is a diversion, nothing more.
You are showing your true colors and they are not very flattering.




What first began to raise flags for me, though was when speakers at the High School graduation here in town were told that even though they are going to be speaking about themselves, they are not allowed to mention God or Jesus during their speeches. The reason given: Seperation of Church and State. Apparently the "or prohibiting the free speech thereof" portion of the first amendment doesn't count.
The students are speaking on behalf of themselves and not the schools, yet...


"Are you comfortable if they mention Jesus along with Allah, Krishna, and Buddha?" - aspen

-- LOL Of course I have no problem with it. If an honor grad wants to acknowedge their faith in Allah or Krishna or Buddha as the reason for their success I have no problem with that. The point is that ALL of these believers are being stiffed and their First Amendment rights are being refused. Try again.




"Are you in favor of having voodoo ceremonies in New Orleans school districts, where the majority of people believe in so sort of voodoo religion?"- aspen

-- The majority religion in New Orleans is Catholicism. http://en.wikipedia....iki/New_Orleans Once again I ask please give facts a try.
It will feel strange at first but eventually you may even enjoy them.




" agree that the school systems have chosen to interpret the separation of church and state in the wrong way" - aspen

-- Would you please make up your mind? First you say the schools are right in the interests of "diversity" and now you are saying otherwise.
But by admitting that they are interpreting it the wrong you, you are acknowledging that Christians cannot practice their faith in the way guaranteed specifically in the First Amendment and are thus being oppressed.
Well done.






If you were to Google "hate crime legislation anti-Christian" you would be able to read several examples as to why, if passed, Christians will be forced into silence or face fines or jail. - Me


"I am sure I would - if I were to google white supremacy and Christianity I would also find plenty of material." - aspen

-- Really? This is what you're reduced to? The race card?

To imply that white supremacists make up more than a sliver of those who call themselves Christians is pathetic.

According to you I can then point to the gay parades in San Francisco, Washington and New York and say that those adult men in diapers with giant pacifiers, dressed as fairies, semi-naked or clad in leather with handcuffs, or simulating oral sex on fruit while riding on floats shows a perfect picture of mainstream gays America.

And because many of the gay parades allow NAMBLA to openly participate, using your standard of truth that means that all gays believe in or even practice what NAMBLA does.

You really know how to make yourself look silly sometimes.



"I love the Constitution. I simply happen to believe it applies to all Americans, not just White Christians." - aspen

-- Ah yes, the race card. Built upon your belief that Christians in America are white...just white...nothing else.

As a non-Caucasian myself I find that argument rather ridiculous.
I still marvel at Liberals. You can always tell when they can't make a coherent argument because they suddenly inject race.
I am still shocked at the reaction of Liberals when they are flummoxed by the fact that just because I am not white I am somehow a Liberal.
Aspen, your accusations themselves scream racism and - according to Liberals - since I am a non-white saying that, it must be taken as truth.
Please grow up.

 

[aspen]

"Interview any black person and you will hear about the racism that is embedded in our justice system." - aspen

-- Are you really so clueless that you would make my point for me? You asked for an example of a Christian being arrested for being a Christian, implying that since they aren't that proves they do not face discrimination or oppression.
The same stamdard for blacks and gays shows what a lame statement that was for you.

I am not implying anything. I am clearly stating examples of black people's experiences with institutionalized racism. You could have also included examples of institutionalized racism or discrimination of Christians - people put on death row because of their faith, beat up by police because they are proclaiming Christ, or even refused services because they are Christian. Not being able to sing Christian Christmas Carols at school is pretty small potatoes. If I see Christians prosecuted for their faith or even if they are not given the benefit of the doubt because they are people of faith, I will oppose it.

"It is a bit ridiculous to complain about a nativity scene - however, having Christian items in public places is a privilege!" - aspen

-- Really? And who grants or removes that privilege? Based on what?
Please don't embarass yourself by saying "diversity gives them the right." Diverstiy means more should be included, not less. Get a clue.
You again skip the whole "not abridge the free practice thereof" portion. But you pretty much have to. That is the only way your position flies.

I must of missed it when you talked about supporting ALL religions in the public arena. If this is the case, we are not longer in disagreement. I believe we either need a secular public arena or a religiously diverse public arena.

Likewise I have remained silent even though my daughter has been told they can no longer sing Christmas Carols in their school's Christmas Concert that refer to Jesus, Baby Jesus, Christ, God, Angels or the like. As a matter of fact, the "Christmas" concert is now called the "Holiday" concert so as not to offend non-believers and Muslims in our community. Strangely enough a large number of Jews have come forward with the Christians demanding to know why they can't sing songs related to a government-created holiday. A holiday that the government itself calls"Christmas." If I remember right Congress voted it into existance and the President Grant signed it into law. - Me


"A privilege, which is not being honored any longer. It is funny to me that you cannot see that getting to display Christian symbols or sing Christian songs in a multicultural society is a privilege." - aspen

-- Christmas is a national holiday in America, signed into law in 1870 by President Grant. It is a legal, recognized holiday in the United States.
Sorry but is is a law and not a 'privilege.' Try again.

I believe Christmas was made a national holiday, along with Thanksgiving and New Years Day for labor reasons more than religious ones, but, once again, if you support all religious expression in the public arena we are in agreement.

So tell me, do you really think that part in the First Amendment gives a school the right to restrict a recital song, a graduation speech, etc. just because of their faith? The powers that be sure do. So basically, if it has to do with Christianity, the no prohibiting of free exercise and the no prohibiting of simple free speech no longer applies to you. - Me


"All or none." - aspen

-- Your answer is strawman drivel. The First Amendment means everyone. It states 'religion' not 'Christian religion.' Your answer is a diversion, nothing more.
You are showing your true colors and they are not very flattering.

My statement is not a strawman - it is a simple opinion. I believe we need a secular public arena or a diverse one.

What first began to raise flags for me, though was when speakers at the High School graduation here in town were told that even though they are going to be speaking about themselves, they are not allowed to mention God or Jesus during their speeches. The reason given: Seperation of Church and State. Apparently the "or prohibiting the free speech thereof" portion of the first amendment doesn't count.
The students are speaking on behalf of themselves and not the schools, yet...


"Are you comfortable if they mention Jesus along with Allah, Krishna, and Buddha?" - aspen

-- LOL Of course I have no problem with it. If an honor grad wants to acknowedge their faith in Allah or Krishna or Buddha as the reason for their success I have no problem with that. The point is that ALL of these believers are being stiffed and their First Amendment rights are being refused. Try again.

We agree.

"Are you in favor of having voodoo ceremonies in New Orleans school districts, where the majority of people believe in so sort of voodoo religion?"- aspen

-- The majority religion in New Orleans is Catholicism. http://en.wikipedia....iki/New_Orleans Once again I ask please give facts a try.
It will feel strange at first but eventually you may even enjoy them.

Actually, much of the Catholicism in New Orleans has Voodoo intertwined with it. In any case, I am glad to see that you are being consistent in your support for all religious expression.


" agree that the school systems have chosen to interpret the separation of church and state in the wrong way" - aspen

-- Would you please make up your mind? First you say the schools are right in the interests of "diversity" and now you are saying otherwise.
But by admitting that they are interpreting it the wrong you, you are acknowledging that Christians cannot practice their faith in the way guaranteed specifically in the First Amendment and are thus being oppressed.
Well done.

Here is what I have been trying to say all along; separation of church and state was originally included in the Constitution to protect religion from government intrusion. Today, the Supreme Court and many government institutions have decided to interpret the separation of church and state as a public arena free of religion. So, for people who care about this issue, there is a decision to be made - either accept a secular public arena or fight for religious expression. Personally, I could careless, my faith is in Jesus Christ, not in the government's expression of Christ. However, I support no expression or a diverse expression of religion in the government. One more thing, I do see this as a contentious issue within some groups because although people claim they will tolerate diversity in the public arena, many are angry about private expression of religious diversity - one example being the Muslim center in NYC.

If you were to Google "hate crime legislation anti-Christian" you would be able to read several examples as to why, if passed, Christians will be forced into silence or face fines or jail. - Me


"I am sure I would - if I were to google white supremacy and Christianity I would also find plenty of material." - aspen

-- Really? This is what you're reduced to? The race card?

To imply that white supremacists make up more than a sliver of those who call themselves Christians is pathetic.

According to you I can then point to the gay parades in San Francisco, Washington and New York and say that those adult men in diapers with giant pacifiers, dressed as fairies, semi-naked or clad in leather with handcuffs, or simulating oral sex on fruit while riding on floats shows a perfect picture of mainstream gays America.

And because many of the gay parades allow NAMBLA to openly participate, using your standard of truth that means that all gays believe in or even practice what NAMBLA does.

You really know how to make yourself look silly sometimes.

How come whenever I mention race I am 'playing the race card?' It makes me think that you do not know what that term means. The point of my statement had nothing to do with race. My point was there is a lot of misinformation on the internet.

"I love the Constitution. I simply happen to believe it applies to all Americans, not just White Christians." - aspen

-- Ah yes, the race card. Built upon your belief that Christians in America are white...just white...nothing else.

Not at all. I am saying that white Christian males are most likely to get the benefit of the doubt in the public arena. I never said that only white people are Christian.

As a non-Caucasian myself I find that argument rather ridiculous.

The way you have interpreted it is a bit ridiculous.

I still marvel at Liberals. You can always tell when they can't make a coherent argument because they suddenly inject race.

I don't think that is accurate. Instead, it seems as if anyone who is labelled a liberal mentions anything about race they are immediately accused of using it as an excuse of some sort. Speaking of using generalizations, conservatives often get accused of being racists every time they mention race. Neither are accurate or helpful for improving dialog.

I am still shocked at the reaction of Liberals when they are flummoxed by the fact that just because I am not white I am somehow a Liberal.

Stereotypes abound.

Aspen, your accusations themselves scream racism and - according to Liberals - since I am a non-white saying that, it must be taken as truth.

Where did I accuse anyone of anything?

Please grow up.


Conversation stoppers:

1. 'Are you really so clueless'
2. 'what a lame statement'
3. 'Get a clue.'
4. 'Please don't embarass yourself'
5. 'Try again.'
6. 'Your answer is strawman drivel'
7. 'You are showing your true colors and they are not very flattering'
8. 'To imply that white supremacists make up more than a sliver of those who call themselves Christians is pathetic'
9. 'You really know how to make yourself look silly sometimes'
10. 'your accusations themselves scream racism'
11. 'Please grow up.'

I am not sure if you are used to being to talk to in this manner, but I am not. All of these comments communicate disdain and a general lack of respect for me as a person. I am wondering, do you talk to people you disagree with like this in person? None of these statements are helpful for reaching a mutual understanding or even promoting basic Christian charity, which leads me to a question; what is your purpose for having these types of conversations? Are you simply trying to win? Do you like declaring me to be clueless or silly, over and over again? Because if it is your purpose, let's just cut to the chase - just declare me to be unworthy of your time and energy and move on.

 

[Foreigner]

"How come whenever I mention race I am 'playing the race card?' " - aspen

-- When mention blacks being victims of institutionalized racism you are not playing the race card.
When you say things like, I love the Constitution. I simply happen to believe it applies to all Americans, not just White Christians." -- you are.

No one here is talking about just white Christians in any part of this discussion - except you.
Interjected with no prompting and no related comments that would make your comment appropriate or useful.


As far as the term "institutionalized racism" goes, if you can't see that is an issue seriously in the twilight of it's usefulness, you need to wake up.

From what I have seen, whites have had to completely change and monitor the way they speak and interact with non-whites for fear of being hit with the racism label. The tragedy is that people like Sharpton, Jackson, Jeremiah White, etc. will drop that charge at the drop of a hat with absolutely no basis. That weakens that accusation so it is taken less seriously when there is actual cause to justify using it.

It is very hard to make the argument for "institutionalized racism" when we have or have had:
- A black President
- Two black Supreme Court justices
- Two black Secretaries of State (including one black female and one who was also Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.)
- Black cabinet members in every administration in for the last 30 years
- Black Congressmen and Senators
- Black mayors of major cities
- Black police chiefs and fire marshalls in major citites
- Black sheriffs in counties encompassing major cities
- Black CEOs of major corporations such as Boeing, Time Warner, Merrill Lynch, KMart, American Express...
- Black tenured professors at major universities
- Black generals and admirals
- Black secret service agents
- A black officer carrying the "football" with the nuclear codes for the president
- Black NASA astronauts
- Black lawers
- Black architects
- Black police officers
- Black small business owners
- Black judges on every level up to and including the Supreme Court.
- Black news anchors of major news outlets on both cable and network stations.
- Black entertainers and sports figures worth - in some cases - hundreds of millions of dollars.

If there were indeed widespread "institutionalized discrimination" then how does something like this happen?
How do children of color then get selected before whites to get into major colleges and universities via affirmative action?

Tell me specifically how a nation goes - in one single generation - from blacks having to ride on the back of the bus and Martin Luther King having to risk his life to put forth his message - to a nation with a black President, a black Sec. of State, a black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, black CEO of American Express, Time Warner, Merrill Lynch, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc?

Blacks make up roughly 20% of the population. How would this happen without participation and sanction of the white community in this country? Yes there are racists. But they no longer call the shots in this nation. And they are just as prevalent in all communities - whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

I am a HUGE fan of MLK and I think that if he were to return today, he would be absolutely GOBSMACKED that in less than 40 years since his death - one single generation - the US has changed so mightily.

But he would also have a huge issue with the glorification of misogyny and drugs in rap music, the staggering level of unwed pregnancies in the black community and the like.

And yes, he would have legitimate criticisms of other groups, races, etc. but he would be shocked at what has happened to the black family in America.



"I am saying that white Christian males are most likely to get the benefit of the doubt in the public arena." - aspen

-- The benefit of the doubt...in what specifically?
And try telling that to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and even Billy Graham who have all said at one time or another during their ministries some brutally stupid things for which they were rightfully held accountable for.

Yet for Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawley - pass
Jesse Jackson stating he was going to cut Obama's n**s off - pass
Jesse Jackson stating that when he hears men approaching him at night and is relieved to see they are white - pass
Jeremiah White and his victimhood doctrine stating "God D*** America" - pass

Oh, and as a sidebar, you do realize that it 70% of blacks opposed prop. 8 in California http://blogs.abcnews...lacks-tank.html

Whites were pretty much evenly split.


I noticed you didn't bother commenting specifically when I pointed out that gays allow NAMBLA to march in their parades with them.
Why do you think this is?

 

[aspen]

-- When mention blacks being victims of institutionalized racism you are not playing the race card.
When you say things like, I love the Constitution. I simply happen to believe it applies to all Americans, not just White Christians." -- you are.

Yes, that probably was not the best comment I have made. I was trying to communicate that our country is no longer all white people - there was a time when whites and white culture were dominate here - there was nothing wrong with it - it was just a fact. Today, things have changed and we need to make room for all marginalized groups - this goes way beyond blacks and whites. There is a great book called Amazing Grace by Jonathan Kozol, which describes how the poor in our country simply do not have the same services as the rest of Americans. There are many ways to marginalize groups without using race - and think all Americans should have equal schools, hospitals, and access to safe housing.

No one here is talking about just white Christians in any part of this discussion - except you.
Interjected with no prompting and no related comments that would make your comment appropriate or useful.

I just want to make sure everyone get equal access to services and protection under the law.

As far as the term "institutionalized racism" goes, if you can't see that is an issue seriously in the twilight of it's usefulness, you need to wake up.

I should not have stopped at just blacks as the only example of a marginalized group - there are the poor, felons, homosexuals, run away teens, working poor, mentally ill - all these people are marginalized.

From what I have seen, whites have had to completely change and monitor the way they speak and interact with non-whites for fear of being hit with the racism label. The tragedy is that people like Sharpton, Jackson, Jeremiah White, etc. will drop that charge at the drop of a hat with absolutely no basis. That weakens that accusation so it is taken less seriously when there is actual cause to justify using it.


I am not seeing the tragic part? We can only change ourselves. Do you have a problem making changes in your language? It seems to me to be the Christian thing to do.

It is very hard to make the argument for "institutionalized racism" when we have or have had:

I guess it is, if we limit institutionalized racism to just black people.

If there were indeed widespread "institutionalized discrimination" then how does something like this happen?
How do children of color then get selected before whites to get into major colleges and universities via affirmative action?

So do you think that because of affirmative action, there is no longer discrimination in this country? And what do you think about affirmative action?

Tell me specifically how a nation goes - in one single generation - from blacks having to ride on the back of the bus and Martin Luther King having to risk his life to put forth his message - to a nation with a black President, a black Sec. of State, a black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, black CEO of American Express, Time Warner, Merrill Lynch, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc?

Finally, there is a steady upward mobile class of black people in this country. Now we need to keep working for other marginalized groups

Blacks make up roughly 20% of the population. How would this happen without participation and sanction of the white community in this country? Yes there are racists. But they no longer call the shots in this nation. And they are just as prevalent in all communities - whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

Racism still exists.

I am a HUGE fan of MLK and I think that if he were to return today, he would be absolutely GOBSMACKED that in less than 40 years since his death - one single generation - the US has changed so mightily.


And he would say that there is still work to be done.

But he would also have a huge issue with the glorification of misogyny and drugs in rap music, the staggering level of unwed pregnancies in the black community and the like.
And yes, he would have legitimate criticisms of other groups, races, etc. but he would be shocked at what has happened to the black family in America.

There are good reasons for all of the social problems in the black community. It would take way to long to list them all. I think MLK would be saddened, but not surprised.


"I am saying that white Christian males are most likely to get the benefit of the doubt in the public arena." - aspen

-- The benefit of the doubt...in what specifically?
And try telling that to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and even Billy Graham who have all said at one time or another during their ministries some brutally stupid things for which they were rightfully held accountable for.

It sounds like you are defending them - is that true? Black people get watched more closely in stores, on the streets, and by the police. Affirmative action often makes black students and employees have to work harder just to make sure people do not think they were handed their scholarship or job.

Yet for Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawley - pass
Jesse Jackson stating he was going to cut Obama's n**s off - pass
Jesse Jackson stating that when he hears men approaching him at night and is relieved to see they are white - pass
Jeremiah White and his victimhood doctrine stating "God D*** America" - pass

No one takes Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson seriously. And Jeremiah White did not get a pass - the guy is a racist and everyone knows it

Oh, and as a sidebar, you do realize that it 70% of blacks opposed prop. 8 in California http://blogs.abcnews...lacks-tank.html

Yes, black people tend to have issues with homosexuals - it is what it is.

Whites were pretty much evenly split. I noticed you didn't bother commenting specifically when I pointed out that gays allow NAMBLA to march in their parades with them.
Why do you think this is?

I usually do not look to gay pride parades for a rational cross section of homosexuals - they are usually on the fringe, I am not sure what you want me to say? Homosexuals let NAMBLA march in their parade because they are all equally sexually perverted? I think that would be a sweeping generalization.


Here's the deal - sometimes traditionally marginalized people slip through the cracks, get promoted, are criminals, take advantage of the system, make racist remarks - it happens. There are wackos in every group and they are usually the loudest. Would you like to trade places with them?