Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Matthew,

We in this country enjoy rights far greater than those of most countries. The right to hold a meaningful public debate (theoreticly protected by the first amendment), has recently been trashed by our beloved (sic)leader and his followers, in the name of security.
We seem to be doing things in this country not because they are right or wrong, but because we can.
This is a sad commentary on the state of this country.

The incedent in Skokie is just the lamest of the three examples that you chose. I don’t dispute the “right” of the ANP to march in Skokie. I do, however, dispute the wisdom of the decision to do so.

The same goes for drilling in ANWAR.
I can only ask why?
In the time it will take to successfully drill and deliver the oil that the area holds, we could be developing an alternitive source of energy that would make any benefit from ANWAR redundant.
Why spend the time and energy?
Do we do this just because we can?

I would submit that while mixed race addoptions benefit the children financially, what does the child loose culturally?

Is money everything in America?

We here in America with our greater rights and freedoms, are using the collective ego that comes with these rights, to trash what America is all about.

When will we begin to do the “right thing”, just because we can?

Rocky:

“Why spend the time and energy?
Do we do this just because we can?”

Yes. That, and the oil companies are happy. Shrub like oil companies!

“I would submit that while mixed race addoptions benefit the children financially, what does the child loose culturally?”

The words “nigga,” “beotch,” and “hoe.”

“Is money everthing in America?”

Yes.

“When will we begin to do the “right thing”, just because we can?”

When hell freezes over.

1. The Rally in Skokie is similar to the behavior of Pro-Life Groups to Terri Schiavo.

2. If you ever bother to watch National Geographic, you will see a great deal of life living in the Tundra. Just because you don’t see a Tundra as being equal to a Forest does not mean a Tundra is any less relevant to the ecosystem.

3. Your argument is a stereotype of Equal Rights Groups. While I am convinced they are some who advocate what you suggest, I am sure the vast majority do not support that view.

Oh yah, Matt, on your racial adoption bit:

We cannot allow the blacks to integrate into the pure white society! We must keep them separate from us! And the same goes for the Jews! Christ would be puking at the cross if he could see how far HIS RACE has fallen! The blacks are mudmen and the Jews abominations of God!

LONG LIVE WHITE POWER!

Zeek,

The things you pointed out are not one sided.

Matthew,
That was the lamest blog I’ve seen. The absurdity of comparing oil drilling to miscegenation and neo-Nazi-KKK is not worthy of discussion.

Aldous:
(3) I remember earnest proponents of not letting white couples adopt black children because “the white parents couldn’t adequately prepare black children for the prejudices of society.” At the time, it was not an insignificant minority who that view.

Zeek:
Not even remotely amusing.

I’ve never tried to adopt anyone, however I did check into becomeing a “big brother”.

I was told that mostly they need black males in the area to “match” with a child.

They didn’t think that a black child be properly mentored by someone of another race!

The liberals running that office really have a plan…keep em seperate, keep em down.

Beagle

What a shame. I ran into the same type of liberal bias when looking into adoption/mentoring. My wife was insulted by the people both in the adoption agency and in the big brother beauracracy. A little further investigation revealed virtually all the people we spoke with were members of Democrat party and clearly were biased. “Keep em seperate, keep em down” preserves their base. They may not be aware of it, but their attitudes and actions perpetuate and enable the same-same.

Dave:
“Not even remotely amusing”

The truth never is. Because, like it or not, there a lot of neo-nazis in this country and I hear stuff like “white power” all the time.

As a social worker in rural West Virginia, you can imagine some of the things I see daily. I read this site daily, but this is my first post. I consider myself a “bleeding-heart” liberal. I whole-heartedly agree with Matthew on the issue of interracial adoption. An appropriate, loving, nurturing family is the best thing a child can have, no matter if the family members are not all from the same race. Foster homes and institutions, while most often well meaning are sometimes as bad or worse for the child than from where they came. My personal opinion on the matter is that if parents choose to adopt outside their own race, they would do much better for the child if, together, they learn about the culture from whence the child came. Also, as a family, sharing your own culture and learning about different cultures and customs can only act to further the education of tthe entire family and give the information to make a choice on what , as a family, they like and dislike. This onlky serves to strengthen the family and not weaken it. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. Sassy

Beagle/Chichi;

Those are philistine comments best left for message board raves. To apply devious selfish motives such as those shows a complete lack of tolerance to or understanding of what liberal means. It examples exactly what is wrong with the current pseudo-conservative mantra of “THEY are not us so THEY are stupid/ignorant/evil/(fill in your own derogative)”
Like I’m really sure your wife asked social workers what party they belonged to.

Zeek:
Yes, you’re right. But, we see that kind of hate speech enough that it struck me in a way I’m sure you did not intend.

The Terry Schiavo pull-the-tube-or-not is one such issue. I talked to lots and lots of people in person and on the web about this issue. There are dozens of different angles to it that influence one’s opinion. But one incomprehensible fact I found disturbing:

EVERY single person I talked to (and the vast majority of commentators on TV) who came down in favor of removing the feeding tube justified their position, without explicitly linking the two, by declaring that they themselves would not want to live that way. As if that had ANY BEARING WHATSOEVER on the issue! Every one of these people didn’t care a hoot about Terri’s wishes or what she may have said in what company on whatever date. All of these people immediately placed themselves in that bad and declared her life worthless because that’s they way “they” would feel there.

Even more disturbing, this seems to imply that these people think we should base those life-or-die decisions on public opinion. Polling. And as I become more cynical each year, I’m losing any doubt that such a thing would one day become commonplace in this country.

Matthew,

I completely agree with you in regards to adoption, as I am one half of an interracial marriage and father of our seven year old. The Nazis are not even worth mentioning. As for drilling for oil in Alaska, it is an issue that remains completely debatable.

I will say two positive lines on the prospect of oil being there. It is on American soil. We dont have to go and kill anyone but animals to go and get it.

As for the narrow and shortsighted thinking behind it, there is much to say. I own a car that gets on average 50 miles to the gallon. Yes, it is indeed a Prius. I fill up once every 5 weeks. The answer to our energy issues is in technology that is off the shelf and ready for consumption by America. The ANWR oil will not be made available for at least ten years, which really solves nothing.

Alternate fuel cars, alongside vehicles with better fuel efficiency and non-polluting engines, such as the Volkswagen near zero emission systems, are the immediate answer. NO DEBATE NEEDED HERE.

chichi,

As A self subscribed liberal I think you are talking about a conservative “keep em seperate, keep em down” bias. See how easily this argument is dismissed.

Stop with the stupid generalizations and form an intelligent viewpoint. The term Liberal is just a conservative “talking head” label. It doesn’t mean squat. Nor does conservative wingnut for that matter.

I think the political discourse in this country would move forward more quickly without these kind of disingenuous labels.

Just my 2 cents.

Bryan,

Since the court decided that Michael had the say, what is your opinion of how you should be allowed to influence the decision?

Dave,

I’m not sure why trying to become a “big brother” would be “devious selfish motives” ?

I do stand corrected on assumeing that the office was run by liberals, I just guessed on that based on the fact that every elected office, and gov. program in that city is run by someone with a “D” after their name.

I’ll have to check and see if somehow a conservative slipped through and is running that one program, that could be the problem.

If a black child adopted by a white family grows up “culturally deprived,” does a white child adopted by a black family also grow up “culturally deprived”?

Chef Mark -

Kudos for driving a cool car. And I certainly agree with you; it would be a good thing if Americans chose to drive more fuel-efficient cars, and we should be encouraged to do so. I imagine that we might disagree on how best to do this encouraging …

Aside from the revolution it would cause, we could let the price of gasoline approach its cost in Europe …

Dave: “Since the court decided that Michael had the say, what is your opinion of how you should be allowed to influence the decision”

Uh, no, Dave. That’s not what the court decided. The court decided one thing:

(1) Terri S declared before she became incapacitated that she would not want to live in the established circumstances.

Technically, the court’s decision had nothing whatsoever to do with the status of her legal guardian. If her husband had wanted to keep her alive, the court theoretically determined that she should still die.

Do not confuse the lower court’s decision with a decision much later to not remove Michael S as her guardian. Those two lawsuits and decisions are legally unrelated. Whether you want to lump them together for whatever political reason you have, the courts’ decisions had no real relation to each other.

Beagle: Your quote
“The liberals running that office really have a plan…keep em seperate, keep em down.”
And this is not assigning devious motives?

Chichi’s quote:
“…adoption agency and in the big brother beauracracy. A little further investigation revealed virtually all the people we spoke with were members of Democrat party and clearly were biased.”
Adoption agency and Big brother has elected officials running it? Clearly biased because they are Democratic? Biased how? As god forbid, “liberals”? Vs., halleluya, biased as “conservative”? We all know conservatives want mixed race families since it was in their platform the last election and liberals just need ‘dem black folk po’ and dum ‘cause why else ‘day vote for ‘dem, eh?

Do you really believe what you said?

Bryan:
My apollogies for the misleading sentance structure. It might have been better phrased as: “The courts believed Michael represented her wishes and effectively gave him the final say.”

About the adoption issue-

The article linked to was excellent.

I think that the lack of adoption of black children has much less to do with a liberal fear of cultural deprivation as it does residual racism, either on the part of the adopters or thier families. I went through a lot of that upon adopting my daughter, who is hispanic. Both my and my wife’s relatives asked if she would speak with a spanish accent, and when her skin would lighten up. We sent pictures in which (due to lighting, I guess) her skin looked a little lighter, and we got supposedly complimentary comments about it, only to be met with well-disguised dismay upon seeing that yes, she still has slightly darker skin than me. My family would never be looked upon as racist, they are very good, usually sensitive people with strong friendships with people of many races, but even there, racism just kind of lingers. Let me hasten to say that these were only initial responses, and both of our families are now completely in love with her, but this kind of response and fear of this kind of response can be a real barrier.

I don’t think that adoption agencies have anything but good intentions. They provide a wonderful service. They are also very comitted to making sure you know what you are getting into. I worry about racial/ethnic issues with my daughter. I worry that she won’t be accepted by the white kids because of her skin and she won’t be accepted by the hispanic kids because she doesn’t speak spanish. These kinds of things are real concerns and are even more evident when the adoption of black children is considered. Nobody is doing anybody any favors by pretending that racial issues don’t exist, or by trying to make political use out of them (unless that use is to promote less racism).
Of course trans-racial adoptions are good (for me, unbelievably good). I agree that there is no question of that. But debating the point brings out so many other important issues that I think it’s worth it anyway. If nothing else, the fact that people would rather go through massive paperwork and expense to travel to China to adopt rather than adopting a black child speaks in a fundamental way about how strong racism still is in this country.

Some issues which I believe should not be open for discussion:

1) Whether one can claim to hold dear the message of Jesus Christ while participating in pre-emptive war and the recklessness of killing 100,000 innocents.

2) Whether extensive torture, human rights abuses, and documented detainee deaths in Abu Ghraib / Afghanistan / Guantanamo / all over - is justifiable.

3) Whether electronic black box voting machines run by partisan corporations are a “good thing” for democracy and/or “necessary”.

4) Whether repealing the ethics act and stacking the ethics comit. w/ friends of Tom DeLay is morally wrong.

5) Whether we should know WHO we are fighting when we go to war and WHY.

But I digress… I’ll spare the other examples.

Paul:
“1) Whether one can claim to hold dear the message of Jesus Christ while participating in pre-emptive war and the recklessness of killing 100,000 innocents”

Sure you can, but you’d be a liar wouldn’t you?

“2) Whether extensive torture, human rights abuses, and documented detainee deaths in Abu Ghraib / Afghanistan / Guantanamo / all over - is justifiable.”

If the Nazis could justify the Holocaust, I’m sure the US can justify torturing a few obscure people that not too many Americans really care about.

“3) Whether electronic black box voting machines run by partisan corporations are a ‘good thing’ for democracy and/or ‘necessary’.”

We are not a Democracy dammit!

“4) Whether repealing the ethics act and stacking the ethics comit. w/ friends of Tom DeLay is morally wrong.”

Depends on whether or not you’re ever on the recieving end of that decision.

“5) Whether we should know WHO we are fighting when we go to war and WHY.”

Do we ever really know?

Please, this is fun, keep the examples coming :)

Brian,

Thank you for the perspective. I never really thought of why people go to China to adopt. All of the people I know who took that route did so because they were lesbian couples who could not otherwise get children in our system. Shame on me, I just assumed…
Anyway, my wife and I are of different races. It was a concern to us that I had no experience being a minority. Without her support I would have been unable to appropriately mentor my children as they encountered prejudice.
To be a good citizen you need to be able to challenge all assumptions. Including those being shown here. E.g. there are no valid reasons for people to consider the implications of interracial adoption. Notice I said “implications.” I think any child who’s alone except for the system deserves a family and that race should play no part. But, unfortunately, race does play a part. Just not enough to deny the child a family. (Had to make sure I was clear on that point)

Yes we are not a democracy, sorry about that. Whether its good for a constitutional repbulic I should have said… the term democracy is popular, sometimes I forget to distinguish.

Brian,
I have a blonde headed daughter - we went to S.Texas - virtually every Hispanic person who could get within arms reach of her wanted to touch her hair (of course they asked first).
I am not exactly sure why - luck I think - I don’t remember -
I was not insulted by it - my child didn’t understand - she was 2.

The first thing everyone has to do is stop pretending that ‘white people’ are the only ones who look at other races differently.

I have an older adopted brother who is black. I am white, and he was adopted 36 years ago, when racial tentions were even higher. It has never come into my mind that he has lost his culture because his skin is a different tone than mine. No has it been a problem for him, this is the only family he has ever known. I asked him one time if he ever wanted to find out who his birth mother was, and he said, no, our parents were the only one’s he knew and he didn’t care about anyone else. This thing about losing one’s culture is hogwash. What matters is relationships and raising someone in love to know right from wrong. Kids are far better off in a normal (read - Nuclear family of one man and one woman) family than in foster care of the same skin color or waiting for years to find someone who fits their skin tone.

Paul and Zeek,

-I hope this message finds you and yours well. I have a couple pennies of mine to add:

“1) Whether one can claim to hold dear the message of Jesus Christ while participating in pre-emptive war and the recklessness of killing 100,000 innocents”

Sure you can, but you’d be a liar wouldn’t you?

-I’m a Christian and will retire from the Air Force after 20 years this June. I hold dear the message of our Lord and Savior and I also stand up for what is right. I’m not a liar nor a hypocrite. I must ask where you get your numbers (“100,000 innocents”). It seems to me that creating passion without knowledge is the goal with that statement.

“2) Whether extensive torture, human rights abuses, and documented detainee deaths in Abu Ghraib / Afghanistan / Guantanamo / all over - is justifiable.”

If the Nazis could justify the Holocaust, I’m sure the US can justify torturing a few obscure people that not too many Americans really care about.

-The mistakes, however grave, of a few always reflect badly on the rest of the military. We are a big group, spread out all over the world and have different values. Sometimes the people with less values hit the headlines for doing stupid things. No justification, it’s called being human. These people are being or will be punished and our training has increased considerable in the Law of Armed Conflict.

“3) Whether electronic black box voting machines run by partisan corporations are a ‘good thing’ for democracy and/or ‘necessary’.”

We are not a Democracy dammit!

“4) Whether repealing the ethics act and stacking the ethics comit. w/ friends of Tom DeLay is morally wrong.”

Depends on whether or not you’re ever on the recieving end of that decision.

“5) Whether we should know WHO we are fighting when we go to war and WHY.”

Do we ever really know?

-I get the feeling the words “unjust,” “wrong” and “killing for oil” are in your vocabulary when talking of the current war on terrorism. What does the “WHO” represent to you? The field of battle has changed considerable for us in the military. The lines have blurred due to the fact that we are not dealing with a country but a radical idea. That is hard to fight. The “WHY” was spelled out by the Commander-in-Chief; he gave a list of reasons to everyone in a speech not too long ago.

Jason,

“Kids are far better off in a normal (read - Nuclear family of one man and one woman) family than in foster care of the same skin color or waiting for years to find someone who fits their skin tone.”

My mention of culture should have had the caveat, “all things being equal”. In my mind a loving family is a loving family. I am not against mixed race adoptions, however, money shouldn’t come into the picture and I do belive that given the option of a good home from a like race, the child should be given to the family of a like race.
It’s hard enough being a child, they shouldn’t have to deal with the problems thrust upon them by a mixed race adoption.

You asked readers to report if they have had similar experiences of this general type (issues where the opposition is just incomprehensible). Here’s one: gay marriage.

I’m a straight male with no personal interest in this matter, but I cannot figure out why people get so worked up about this. If gays were given the right to marry in all 50 states it would have no impact on any legitimate heterosexual marriage nor would it inhibit any heterosexual couple from getting married in the future. Not only is there no evidence to support the notion that gay marriage would devalue marriage as an institution, there isn’t even any logical basis to form a hypothesis that it would.

I can understand (although I don’t agree with) those who oppose it for religious grounds - but if you’ve read the first ammendment you know that this is no basis for law.

As a side note (on the subject of religion), I really get a kick out of those who claim that the 10 commandments are the basis for our legal system. Have these people ever read them? Only four of the commandments actually deal with concepts or actions that are mentioned in our laws. One of the four, adultery, is not exactly a highly followed or enforced law while the other three (bans on lying, stealing, and killing) are included in the legal systems of every civilized country in the world - even those godless heathens who don’t waste 2 hours every April sitting through Cecil B. De Mille’s masterpiece.

If you want to argue that religious symbols have historical value given the importance of faith to our founding fathers then fine, we can debate that. But don’t try to pretend that they are something they aren’t.

John:
“I get the feeling the words “unjust,” “wrong” and “killing for oil” are in your vocabulary when talking of the current war on terrorism. What does the “WHO” represent to you?”

Well, you got one out of the three. I’m not green enough to whine about injustices nor am I foolish enough to waste my time talking about right and “wrong.” We are, however, killing for oil. Nothing all that surprising about that.

As for the “who,” I have already said, we never really know who we’re fighting. That’s what makes war such a senseless waste of life.

As for the “why” we’re in Iraq, the president has indeed made that clear, but not through any speech he’s given.

Dawn,
The same thing happens to my daughter. She has beautiful long black hair, much more than any other baby I’ve ever seen, and everyone loves to touch it. I think it’s flattering. A little more honest, non-hostile curiosity and less thinking you can tell anything about a person by the color of their hair would do a lot of good for this world, I think.

Rob,

How about this:

Religeous- The 10 Commandments provide a basis for law, but one (a Christian) is also charged with reading the rest of the Bible. In it we can see what to do and what not to do. Sodom and Gomorrah are a good example of why homosexual marriage is not supposed to be. Point blank the Bible tells us that homosexuality is an abomination. Man and woman were made to be together. Why? To enjoy each other and to create offspring. Two members of the same sex cannot do the latter.

Legal- We are constantly defining decency downward. Increment by increment we are generally losing basic values and standards because someone doesn’t agree with them and doesn’t feel he or she should have to live up to those generally agreed upon values and standards. Maybe this is off base, but what comes next? Bigamy is a no-no as well right now, but who is to say someone is going to make an argument to some sympathetic judge somewhere in the future? Maybe bigamy becomes legal then. Some people like bestiality, what happens when…

I hope I have come across clearly enough to make a point. Just something to ponder.

Thanks for the feedback, Zeek.

(I may be wrong; no archives to sift through) I thought I remembered the President giving a speech while looking for our Coalition of the Willing stating what we were going for: WMD, terrorist training camps, Iraq’s people being slaughtered.

I just can’t remember accurately.

YOU -I hope this message finds you and yours well. I have a couple pennies of mine to add:

A: Sure thing, glad to converse.

YOU - I’m a Christian and will retire from the Air Force after 20 years this June. I hold dear the message of our Lord and Savior and I also stand up for what is right. I’m not a liar nor a hypocrite. I must ask where you get your numbers (“100,000 innocents”). It seems to me that creating passion without knowledge is the goal with that statement.

A: I am not here to call you names, but as someone who has studied the messages of Jesus Christ I am puzzled as to how someone could claim to live their life based on his teachings when that involves pre-emptive war on sovereign nations. Not to mention relentless bombing campaigns on densely civilian areas. As the saying goes, who would Jesus bomb?

As for the casualty figures I suggest you research the study published in Lancet that was conducted based on public health records in Iraq. Lancet is a leading medical journal in Europe and the study was tirelessly recorded household by household. The figure they cite (Johns Hopkins, Bloomberg school of public health, and Columbia University) is 100,000 civilians. They included the Kurdish areas which would diminish the overall average and excluded the territory of Falujah which would have obviously increased the average. There is a spread – there has to be, and as they hasten to add it is a difficult study to conduct given the fact that the U.S. does not provide figures as well as considering that many deaths go unreported (private burials of family members are common). But ultimately this is just the most likely figure based on medical evidence. Who knows, maybe its only 50,000… maybe its as many as 200,000. We have no way of knowing other than scientific empiricism.

YOU -The mistakes, however grave, of a few always reflect badly on the rest of the military. We are a big group, spread out all over the world and have different values. Sometimes the people with less values hit the headlines for doing stupid things. No justification, it’s called being human. These people are being or will be punished and our training has increased considerable in the Law of Armed Conflict.

A: If you really believe that our troops thought up the Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan torture methods you’re engaging in a form of self-delusion. Troops do not do anything they are not ordered to do, and as Pulitzer-prize-winning reporter/author Seymour Hersh points out in his new book “Chain Of Command†the orders go all the way up. Why there was so little attention given to the fact that whoever gave these orders had an intimate knowledge of the Arab world and their cultural vulnerabilities, I’ll never know. Why was there more attention given to the Peterson trial than the Abu Ghraib trials? I’ll never know. But simply ask defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld or the newly senate-approved Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez who claimed the Geneva conventions were “Quaint and obsoleteâ€. They wont tell you, unless they’re being honest. I guess we learned nothing from the Nuremberg trials about holding the people who GIVE THE ORDERS accountable. Not that the crimes of torture and documented detainee deaths are comparable to Nazi Germany, but the lesson about the chain of command should have been noted.

YOU -I get the feeling the words “unjust,” “wrong” and “killing for oil” are in your vocabulary when talking of the current war on terrorism. What does the “WHO” represent to you? The field of battle has changed considerable for us in the military. The lines have blurred due to the fact that we are not dealing with a country but a radical idea. That is hard to fight. The “WHY” was spelled out by the Commander-in-Chief; he gave a list of reasons to everyone in a speech not too long ago.

A: I’m not one of those people who believes that oil is the one and only reason for invading Iraq. There is a considerable amount of importance in securing the distribution of oil within the region so I cannot discount it as a reason – but it is A reason, not THE ONLY reason. As former CIA chief George Tenet claimed, control over Iraq’s resources will give the U.S. what he called “veto power†over industrialized nations.

For a more detailed account of why we are in Iraq I suggest you visit

http://www.newamericancentury.org

there you will find mission statements as well as extensive writing on justifications for the war and U.S. hegemony on a global scale. Look into their publications/reports and read “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Centuryâ€. The war itself is an extension of these neo-conservative ideals of re-shaping the Middle East’s geo-politics with regard to U.S. and Israeli interests.

Your analysis of the Iraq war seems to tie it in with much of the rhetoric of the administration. Namely, that we are engaged in a war with terrorism and must be relentless in our pursuit of terrorist enemies. I fully agree with your motive (hunting terrorists) but not your method (invading and occupying a Middle Eastern sovereign state that never attacked us, threatened us, or posed a considerable terrorist threat to us). By the way the terrorism justification is sooo 6 months ago and meant to replace the initial justification of finding weapons of mass destruction, I’d expect you to have gotten in line with the new rationale – that we are there to implant democracy in the region.

As for WHO we are fighting – an interview between Bob Herbert and an American soldier from Iraq says it all. Please read this excerpt:

Not long ago I interviewed a soldier who was paralyzed from injuries he had suffered in a roadside bombing in Iraq. Like so many other wounded soldiers I’ve talked to, he expressed no anger and no bitterness about the difficult hand he’s been dealt as a result of the war.

But when I asked this soldier, Eugene Simpson Jr., a 27-year-old staff sergeant from Dale City, Va., whom he had been fighting in Iraq - who, exactly, the enemy was - he looked up from his wheelchair and stared at me for a long moment. Then, in a voice much softer than he had been using for most of the interview, and with what seemed like a mixture of sorrow, regret and frustration, he said: “I don’t know. That would be my answer. I don’t know.”

Heh, John, you missed my point I think. My point was that Shrub’s actions were/are revealing of his reasons for going to war and not his words. Actions speak louder than words and all that…

Zeek,

Thanks for the clarification. I understand and agree.

Paul,

I’m going to visit the site you mentioned right now. You make some valid points and are obviously more informed than I on some areas. I agree with quite a bit of what you bring up. Thanks for the information; I’ll start reading now.

John,

Thanks for taking the time to read all that I wrote, and for having the natural curiosity to look into these issues.

At the Project’s homepage I think its worth noting the “statement of principles” is a good place to start. Notice underneath the text the names of those who are part of the think-tank. If you dont already know who is involved you may be shocked to learn how familiar some of the names are. Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz etc.

Paul D,

Boy, that’s some interesting information on the Policy’s Web site. I have a question for you: Isn’t it in our and other’s best interest to be globally involved? Aren’t we actually doing some good out there? The Policy’s site states, “…military strength and moral clarity…” isn’t that what we are exercising?

Granted there are selfish people who will take our military and do with it what they want because they are in a high position to do so (Abu Ghraib for instance- you are right on the money with that one, I had the same question gnawing at the far reaches of my mind). But putting that aside, aren’t we taking (making) the good with some of the bad?

Dave’s quote:

“To apply devious selfish motives such as those shows a complete lack of tolerance to or understanding of what liberal means. It examples exactly what is wrong with the current pseudo-conservative mantra of “THEY are not us so THEY are stupid/ignorant/evil/(fill in your own derogative)”
Like I’m really sure your wife asked social workers what party they belonged to.”

It has always been fascinating to me to hear “liberals” preach tolerance. Tolerance becomes less of a principle and more of a political correctness. Core values are just that, at your core. They should not be subject to adjustment to any advantagous situation.
With respect to the “mantra,” have you not witnessed the past two presidential elections? Who was using that rhetoric? It was not conservatives. That sounds more like the Hillary/Gore/Kerry mantra—check the tapes. And, by the way, we live in a small town. When the adoption agency reps are seen as Democratic poll workers, county party exec board members, demonstrating in front of local businesses as part of “GreenPeace,” and running for office as a Democrat, I think we can conclude they are Democrats. Couple that with the campaign rhetoric I witnessed, and the bias also becomes clear. Or would that make me stupid/ignorant/evil (fill in your own derogotive).

Reed’ Quote:

“As A self subscribed liberal I think you are talking about a conservative “keep em seperate, keep em down” bias. See how easily this argument is dismissed.

Stop with the stupid generalizations and form an intelligent viewpoint. The term Liberal is just a conservative “talking head” label. It doesn’t mean squat. Nor does conservative wingnut for that matter.

I think the political discourse in this country would move forward more quickly without these kind of disingenuous labels.”

The argument is only easily dismissed by those who don’t find facts important. Did you witness the last two presidential elections? Did you see how the Republicans made significant gains in the minority/women’s votes? The facts, if they are important to the arguement, do not support you.

I do not consider myself either Republican or Democrat. I was once part of the “Republican establishment,” but got fed up with the vomitous spewings of both sides of the aisle, not to mention various scandals and posturing. So, I declared my independance loudly and proudly. Believe it or not, I have actually voted for Democrats. I do not agree with labels either, but, for lack of anything else meaningful, liberal and conservative are the most descriptive. I also don’t think using the word “stupid” is constructive (reference my previous diatribe).

I agree that “disingenuous labels” come off as smarmy, accusational, confrontational, and antagonistic. I do not find liberal and conservative to be disingenuous, rather, they are overused, misused and misapplied, not to mention used more as a dagger than a description. In their place, what would you suggest?

Dave’s quote:

Adoption agency and Big brother has elected officials running it? Clearly biased because they are Democratic? Biased how? As god forbid, “liberals”? Vs., halleluya, biased as “conservative”? We all know conservatives want mixed race families since it was in their platform the last election and liberals just need ‘dem black folk po’ and dum ‘cause why else ‘day vote for ‘dem, eh?

Do you really believe what you said?

First, reference my previous response. Second, your arguement is antagonistic, accusational, and beyond the scope of what I am stating.

I’m not sure where the “old south slave speak” came from, but, again, what purpose did that serve in this discussion? No one is being derogotory towards minorities here, so why are you accusing me of it? While it is true, historically, that minorities have tended to vote more Democratic than Republican, I do not accuse them of doing so because they are “dumb” or need to be “kept down.” Minorities, I hope, are voting their conscience and heritage, just as, I hope, the rest of us do.

Mixed race families? Where are you getting this stuff?

I ahve read various posts on this site several times in the past. Just like most blogs, it seems that the more back and forth, the more off of the original topic the discussion gets. This is just an observation on my part and you are perfectly able to disagree.

As for the original topic speaking to ther being no serious debate on these topics, I think you have proved that there can be debate on any issue. I believe that wether is is serious or not, is realitive to a lot of tangibles, knowledge of issues, environment/background, and even plain old emotion are three that come to mind.

I appreciate the opportunity to put a couple of coppers in this debate. Serious? You will have to judge that for yourself.

Chichi:
“It has always been fascinating to me to hear “liberals” preach tolerance. Tolerance becomes less of a principle and more of a political correctness.”

Chichi, the word “tolerance” implies that you have a problem with whatever you’re tolerating. That’s why tolerance is usually BS because it’s just a suppression of hatred. It would be much better to preach ACCEPTANCE rather than tolerance.

John:
“But putting that aside, aren’t we taking (making) the good with some of the bad?”

Yes, John, it is impossible to take the good without the bad. But you have to ask yourself whether the good outweighs the bad or not. For instance, how high would the death toll in Iraq have to be for the bad to override the good we’ve done? Just like in Vietnam, there is a breaking point where it is no longer worth the sacrifice.

Sorry about not spellchecking my previous post. My boss, an English major would make me dance on the rug for that one.

Zeek, I think you need a new pair of glasses and a BRAIN. Your a walking/talking contradiction. Everything you just wrote is your personal smoke screen for all the hate in you. Maybe if you would spend some time learning about yourself you would realize HOW distorded your thing really is.

In making decisions about adoption with infants or very young children, the authorities have no business considering race, religion or ethnicity. Race makes no biological sense, and by that age children haven’t learned culture of race. Adoptive parents are making a very important decision and commitment. If they are convinced that they can give the child a good home and otherwise would be allowed to adopt, who cares about their race.

Interracial marriage is another thing that should be left to individuals. Anyone who seeks or rejects potential partners on the basis of race is a pea brain and anyone who thinks it is an important factor for others is a racist.

I know a good number of interracial couples and the numbers are growing. People tend to date and marry those with whom they have contact. As contacts among people of diverse races increases, so will intermarriage.

I understand that there might be problems and challenges, but these will diminish with time. A couple of generations ago, religion had the same power as race in respect to marriage and family. Now few people preclude partners based on that criteria. Back in the 1940s, when my Catholic father married my protestant mother, it was a big deal and almost a scandal in their families. My mother had to convert, and even then it was not really enough. By my generation, only old people and bigots really cared. Now it’s only bigots. The same is at work with race. It is about time too.

For the other two:

We should drill in ANWAR, with strong safeguards. We drill other places that are a lot more sensitive and important. Those who don’t use petroleum products can throw the first stone. Others should just recognize that it is a problem of us not them.

Nazis should be permitted to speak. They are such fools that anytime a large group of people actually hears what they have to say, they lose adherents. The only reason they triumphed in Germany was because they controlled street violence. Take violence away from them, Nazi thought is just dumb and kind of nerdy.

Of course, everyone else should go out and laugh at them. Ridicule is stronger then censure with such little people.

Jr:

“Everything you just wrote is your personal smoke screen for all the hate in you.”

? I have no hate nor resentment to the Shrub administration or anything like that. I’m more disposed to be apathetic than angry.

“I think you need a new pair of glasses and a BRAIN.”

It seems to me that you are the one with hate, though it’s not all that hidden :P

“Maybe if you would spend some time learning about yourself you would realize HOW distorded your thing really is.”

Or maybe you could explain how I’m distorted. My guess is, you can’t and you’re just mad at me for making a clever point :P

Zeek:

“Chichi, the word “tolerance” implies that you have a problem with whatever you’re tolerating. That’s why tolerance is usually BS because it’s just a suppression of hatred. It would be much better to preach ACCEPTANCE rather than tolerance.”

A difference with minimal distinction. “Tolerance…just a suppression of hatred.” Yikes! Acceptance still implies you are agreeing to something other than the norm or what you are comfortable with. I think the suppression of hatred thing is a bit over the top.

chichi:

Ok, so maybe hatred is a little strong for some cases. However, the difference between acceptance and tolerance is still quite large.

Zeek

The use of the pejorative “shrub” is offensive. It doesn’t mean that you hate George Bush, but it does immediately telegraph that you have moved beyond pale of rational consideration of the subject. Even those that agree with you will subsequently discount your arguments to compensate for your point of view, because you have told everyone that, on this subject at least, you have descended to the name calling stage of the argument.

You may believe that you are just being honest with your feelings. You might be doing that purposefully. But I don’t believe that you are hoping to send out the message that you are not really a serious person. That you are also doing.

Some of your posts are good and I benefit from reading them. But I can say that I take them less seriously than I would otherwise. If your intention is to be a self proclaimed “truth telling clown” you succeed when you call the president shrub. If you have a different goal, you may reconsider your tactics.

Re tolerance v acceptance

You make a valid but limited point. You probably don’t love what you only tolerate and you may not accept it, but it is far from suppressed hatred.

There is also a big difference between people and behaviors. If you are referring to a person, you should always accept, not merely tolerate them. Individual human dignity demands acceptance by other humans.

But it is your option to judge freely chosen behaviors. For example, in a free society, I am tolerant of many lifestyles. As long as they don’t directly impinge on me, and the practitioners accept the consequences of their actions, I tolerate almost anything that is the result of competent informed consent. But there are many things I don’t accept, things I wouldn’t do and I would discourage anyone from doing. I don’t hate the people doing these things. I find their behavior unacceptable, but I don’t think it is within my rights to roll up my sleeves and stop it, so I tolerate it.

Jack,

To set the record straight here, I’m not serious about politics. When I use the term “Shrub” I’m not saying it because I hate the man, I’m trying to poke fun at him. If you take this so seriously, I’m probably not the right person for you to debate with.

To me, this debate is more of an opportunity to learn than anything else. I generally only lose my light-heartedness in the face of sheer idiocy. Other than that, I am, as you put it, a “truth telling clown.”

On tolerance:

If you’re tolerating something, doesn’t that mean you have some desire to see it removed from society? For example, if you are tolerating gays, wouldn’t you be happier if they were straight instead? So, then, a promotion of tolerance is a sacrifice of acceptance. Why, then, would anyone preach tolerance over acceptance?

chichi: “With respect to the “mantra,” have you not witnessed the past two presidential elections? Who was using that rhetoric? It was not conservatives”

We are miles apart on this one. Of course it maight depend on which state we live in and which ads we each saw.

chichi:”minorities have tended to vote more Democratic than Republican, I do not accuse them of doing so because they are “dumb” or need to be “kept down.”
Correct. Your original post was “…were members of Democrat party and clearly were biased. “Keep em seperate, keep em down” preserves their base.” The rest of my post was sarcasm. Please be assured I do not accuse you of discrimination here.

Why preach tolerance over acceptance? Because we don’t exist in a country where everyone can agree on everything, as you make abundantly clear. If tolerance is abandoned, what will result is authoritarian control (like in Iran for example, where deviant behavior is neither tolerated or accepted).

There are more liberals posting comments in here than anything else! Here’s my two cents.

1. Nazis should have the right to gather like everyone else. How else would we get to see how incredibly stupid they are?

2. What’s this crap about black and white culture? Aren’t we all Americans? Blacks and whites have been living in this country together for generations. We have a common experience! One of the problems with race relations today, is too many supposedly “progressive” people want to segregrate us with “multi-culturalism.” As long as we view ourselves as separate bodies of people, we’re never going to accept each other! Why should skin color or ethnicity even be a consideration in adoption?

3. Finally, we ARE working on alternative fuel sources. But we may not have a viable alternative for decades! And wind and solar power are not viable alternatives, as they don’t produce nearly as much electricity as coal and gas power plants for the amount of space they take up. I say, if the oil is up there, then let’s go get it! I’m sure we’ll still find uses for it, even after we come up with a better alternative. There’s money to be made. And besides, this isn’t going to cause the environmental disaster that the enviro-loonies predict. They said the same crap about the Alaskan pipeline. They said it would disrupt the habitat of the Alaskan caribou. Well, the caribou actually seem to like the pipeline! They like to huddle around it and its peripheral buildings for warmth.

Chauncy Biggins:

“What’s this crap about black and white culture? Aren’t we all Americans? Blacks and whites have been living in this country together for generations. We have a common experience! One of the problems with race relations today, is too many supposedly “progressive” people want to segregrate us with “multi-culturalism.” As long as we view ourselves as separate bodies of people, we’re never going to accept each other! Why should skin color or ethnicity even be a consideration in adoption?”

Amen and pass the Scotch! Could not have said it better. Great thought.

Dave:

Correct. Your original post was “…were members of Democrat party and clearly were biased. “Keep em seperate, keep em down” preserves their base.” The rest of my post was sarcasm. Please be assured I do not accuse you of discrimination here.

Understood.

Chauncy Biggins,

I hate to beat a deadhorse here but you had an intelligent post until you used the term enviro-loonies. Only a tried and true right wing conservative wacko would make such a statement……sarcasm alert.

Do you have facts to back up your statement about environmental impact. Have you read the EIS. Do you even know what an EIS is. For your information, they will be forced to create one based on the initiative to actually assess the environmental impact on the area. What a concept, huh……sarcasm alert.

I think the argument is that this is Federal Land which by rights we all own. The oil Lobby which Bush and Cheney have deep pockets into (FACT) appears to be forcing this through the government with a sledgehammer without taking into consideration or caring about the opposing viewpoints. There are many posts on the blog which questions even the quality of this oil as compared to that in the middle east. It may not even be an economically sound decision with the amount of refining which would have to be done.

I for one vote for more incentives for alternative fuel sources and force the hand of the energy companies to stop relying on oil.

Drilling in the ANWR seems like a backward thinking decision instead of a forward alternative decision. The alternative energy resources aren’t (arguably) up to snuff because there is no incentive for power companies to use them because of our dependence on oil.

BTW - my sincere dislike for disingenuous labels stems from Sean Hannity’s book title called Terrorism, Despotism and Liberals - save us from evil.

I do wholeheartedly agree with your point on Nazi’s and culture if your keeping score.

Reed

“In making decisions about adoption with infants or very young children, the authorities have no business considering race, religion or ethnicity. Race makes no biological sense, and by that age children haven?t learned culture of race.”

“As long as we view ourselves as separate bodies of people, we’re never going to accept each other! Why should skin color or ethnicity even be a consideration in adoption?”

Jack and Chauncy,

Baloney!

Until the day that we become a transparent society, the children involved in these adoptions will still have a tough row to hoe.
I personally don’t have a problem with mixed race adoptions, but there are still folks out there that do. I also don’t have a problem with mixed race marriages, but there are many folks out there that do.
I don’t think that we, as a society, have come far enough yet.
When a white couple adopts a black child they are forcing that child into a world of prejudice the parents may not be prepared to help the child through.
Being progressive has nothing to do with the problems that these children will face on a day to day basis.
Wishing that America was diferent won’t change anything.
Ask any black man what it is like to get pulled over by a cop, you will find that his experience us much diffrerent than that of a white man. Ask the same black men what it is like to get a loan to by a house, or get a good paying job. Now compare that to your own experience.
What is it like to be the only black child in a white neighborhood?
This is the frustration that you are asking these children to endure, without the black family’s knowledge or experience to help them get through it.
No, I don’t think that we in America have progressed far enough to make this a practice that we should be condoning.

Soon maybe, but not quite yet.

John:

Sodom and Gomorrah are a good example of why homosexual marriage is not supposed to be. Point blank the Bible tells us that homosexuality is an abomination. Man and woman were made to be together. Why? To enjoy each other and to create offspring. Two members of the same sex cannot do the latter.

You are a very good example of why the arguments against gay marriage are based on fear and misunderstanding. Pray tell me, where in the bible does it say homosexuality is an abomination? The only place I’m aware of it saying this is in Leviticus…a few sentences away from where Leviticus also says that drinking milk is an abomination, cursing one’s parents is cause for the death penalty, and women should not be allowed to worship if they’re menstruating. It also says that a man is obligated to marry his brother’s wife if his brother dies… If you believe all of these statement are God’s word and should be literally interpreted today, then I can at least acknowledge that your argument is congruent…although I would also suspect you’re insane.

If I believed that the constitution was meant to take rights away from people I would support a constitutional amendment banning selective interpretation of the bible.

Rocky,
I think you’re exchanging one form of extremism for another. Clearly, there are problems with trans-racial adoptions, and it may add difficulty for the child. However, I think that that difficulty is nothing compared to that imposed by foster or institutional care. Ideally, either all available babies would be wanted and adopted by members of their own race, or we would advance as a society to the point where we can be truly colorblind. Given that neither of those conditions is going to be met soon, however, cross-racial adoptions are the best solution. The difficulties encountered by the child in your example would be no worse than those encountered by the child of the lone black child in a predominantly white neighborhood.
For some people, maintaining a sense of culture is extremely important, and there are networks of adoptive parents who seek out events, activities, and same-race mentors for their adopted children.
I think it’s an interesting topic to talk about, especially since it demonstrates clearly that racism is still a major problem in America, but on balance it is to everyone’s benefit, especially the child’s, that such adoptions take place.

Above should be “The difficulties encountered by the child in your example would be no worse than those encountered by the child of a lone black family in a predominantly white neighborhood.”

Sorry

“The difficulties encountered by the child in your example would be no worse than those encountered by the child of a lone black family in a predominantly white neighborhood.”

Brian,
While I agree with your sentiment, I disagree with your example. The lone black family have each other, the parents have had at least some experience dealing with whites, and generally blacks in that situation have acheived at least upper middle class status.

You cannot reverse your example and say the same thing.

No mater how much he is nurtured and loved at home, the mixed race adoption child will always be the outsider in his own neighborhood.

Look, I understand your feelings, and I wish that America had grown up a bit faster. We have to face the fact that racism still exists in this country, though not to the extent of fourty years ago.

The problem in this country concerning adoptions is that most adoptive parents want healthy babies. That leaves many children that deserve a good home waiting for anyone that will take them, and unfortunately, that also leaves many in foster home hell.
While the abortion has actually gone down the adoption rate has not gone up. The pro-lifers are not adopting the children that weren’t aborted.
Talk about a “Catch 22”.

Rocky,
I agree with most of your sentiments, especially about facing racism, and the wish that our society would grow up.

I know white people who have adopted black babies, polynesian babies, asian babies, and hispanic babies. In pretty much every case, there are some difficulties, but I don’t know of any of the adopted children who would have changed their situation.

You’re right, my example wasn’t that good. The part of my post about what adoptive families can do to help protect cultural identity and provide appropriate mentoring, however, deals with that issue. A lot of families try to avoid homogenously white neighborhoods to avoid that problem. There are a large variety of things families can do to deal with racial issues.

Really, I think that racial difficulties (being discriminated against or different because of race) as with most difficulties, are best met with a strong support system, which a family provides.

Also, remember that the adoptive family has probably been dealing with racism directed towards the child since he/she was adopted. I gave my small examples in my first post. Although these kinds of experiences would not be the same as what the child would go through, I think that these experiences would at least give a perspective on racism that could be applied to helping the child. I don’t think that having been through every situation a child has is a prerequisite for being a good, wise, or helpful parent.

The problem in this country concerning adoptions is that most adoptive parents want healthy babies. That leaves many children that deserve a good home waiting for anyone that will take them, and unfortunately, that also leaves many in foster home hell. While the abortion has actually gone down the adoption rate has not gone up. The pro-lifers are not adopting the children that weren’t aborted. Talk about a “Catch 22”.

Yes, most adoptive parents want healthy babies that look like them, which leaves out a lot of wonderful children. If we were less racist, or a truly color-blind society, this would be less of a problem.

There are a lot of reasons why the adoption rate hasn’t increased. I don’t think that lack of adoptive parents is it, though. Most adoptive parents have to go through a lot to get a baby, and usually wait at least several months. Thousands go to China or elsewhere to adopt.

I think that the biggest reason that the rate of adoption hasn’t increased is that it is now more common and accepted for single mothers to keep their children. Birth mothers used to have to qualify to place children for adoption, now potentential birth mothers are recruited actively, such is the demand for children. I don’t think there are many healthy babies available who don’t get adopted (older children are a whole different issue), and I blame either subtle racism or just the desire to have a child who looks like you for the fact that the majority of those who don’t are probably minorites.

I bet that if adoption was made somewhat cheaper and some of the rational fears of adoptive parents, like having the father show up six months later and take your baby away, were resolved, adoption could provide for a considerable number of those who would otherwise be aborted. We certainly aren’t saturated yet.

Rocky,

Adoption (and marriage as well) should not be about race in the sense that society’s opinion counts for more than the people involved. Quite frankly, I don’t care what society thinks of an interracial adoption/marriage so long as it’s a happy, healthy family. Maybe you’re right, maybe we haven’t come far enough as a society yet, but that’s no reason to eschew cultural progress.

Bret:
“Why preach tolerance over acceptance? Because we don’t exist in a country where everyone can agree on everything, as you make abundantly clear.”

I prefer to use examples in debates like this. Say, for instance, we as a country don’t “agree” on homosexuals. I propose that we learn to accept it, or condemn it. It makes no sense to tolerate it because eventually that will melt away into either condemnation or acceptance. To me, it seems as though tolerance is that place right ontop of the fence. You’re not openly against it, but you’re definitely not for it.

“If tolerance is abandoned, what will result is authoritarian control (like in Iran for example, where deviant behavior is neither tolerated or accepted).”

I’m not talking about ditching acceptance. I’m saying favor acceptance OVER tolerance. Of course, there are some things that should not be tolerated OR accepted (like pedophilia). Some of my peers may see this as splitting the issues into black and white, but it makes sense from where I’m standing.

Mr. Wager,

Putting your attack on me aside, I’m not fearful nor do I believe I’m uninformed about homosexuality. The following is FYI:

Genesis 19:5 They called out to Lot and said, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so we can have sex with them!” Lot went out to them at the entrance and shut the door behind him. He said, “Don’t do [this] evil, my brothers. Leviticus 20:13 If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both committed an abomination. Judges 19:22
While they were enjoying themselves, all of a sudden, perverted men of the city surrounded the house and beat on the door. They said to the old man who was the owner of the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him!” Romans 1:24 Therefore God delivered them over in the cravings of their hearts to sexual impurity, so that their bodies were degraded among themselves. 1:27 The males in the same way also left natural sexual intercourse with females and were inflamed in their lust for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the appropriate penalty for their perversion. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals… 1 Timothy 1:9
We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 1:10 for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching… Job 36:14 They die in their youth; their life [ends] among male cult prostitutes. (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

It’s killing the parents and the milk and menstruation statements were for health, just like the laws regarding food and washing, etc.

As I stated in an earlier post, I’m a Christian man trying very hard to follow the tenets of my Lord and Savior. I believe my interpretation is not selective as you infer; whereas your picking some statements is selective. The Bible is meant to be read and understood as a whole. Sure, each book has its meaning, but it also is part of a very large picture that takes a long time to even start to understand.

I hope I’ve been able to explain myself a little better. Thanks.

I only meant to emphasise *killing*, sorry, the whole line was underlined.

Zeek,

I enjoy reading what you post and read where you posted earlier about tolerance vs. acceptance. Here is how I view it: I accept many kinds of music but only tolerate others (like some of the stuff my daughter listens to); I try accept people but only tolerate some kinds of their actions or lifestyles and do not accept others.

I don’t have to accept anything and shouldn’t accept everything; I have certain standards I hold myself to (I won’t beat anyone in my family, kill, etc.). If someone else’s actions/lifestyle don’t meet my standards, then I can accept the person and tolerate the actions/lifestyle. To accept something not within my personal standards would be hypocritical.

Zeek

It probably impossible for the individual mind to come up with the right answers on most things. Together we make much better decisions about our society and how it will work. To make good decisions, it is important not to come to conclusions or consensus too quickly and to allow debate and differing opinions.

That is why I believe that toleration is sometimes better than acceptance. As I wrote above, I believe we are morally bound to accept all people, but not all behaviors, tastes or ideas. My toleration of behaviors I do not accept allows for the fact that I might be wrong in my judgment. But if enough people simply accept everything without judging it, we condemn our society to be forever in the thrall of the most aggressive or obnoxious individuals. Unrestricted bad behavior drives away good behavior and yes, we all have the right and duty to judge. Think of a park on a Sunday afternoon. Families and individuals are enjoying the good weather in relative harmony, when a group of loud drunks shows up. If we accept this, pretty soon, the park belongs to the drunks because nobody else can stand to be around them.

None of us (you included) believes in complete acceptance or even complete tolerance. Society imposed restrictions on all its members. That goes to the very definition of society. The best society is that which can impose few restrictions and still satisfy most of the needs and aspirations of most of its members. We can logically ask for toleration, but if we try to push to acceptance it fractures society. Do you accept that parents have the right to ensure that their children are not taught evolution? You might tolerate it, but be unwilling to support it and accept it.

Re tolerating means you want it removed – you are probably right. That goes to my first point about knowing that you don’t have THE truth. There are many behaviors that I would like to see removed from society. I may be wrong about them and/or I might change my mind. After considerable thought, I came around to the idea of accepting and supporting gay marriage. I won’t go into my rationale, but I wrote a who post on it that you can read in the archives. I believe I was wrong in my earlier opposition. Of course, I may be wrong in my current support. That is why I have to tolerate.

Rocky

All life has troubles. As Brian wrote, is the foster system alternative better than adoption? Every change requires somebody to be first. I know many multiracial couples and people with different race children. They generally tell me that they have some problems, but less and less. And none of the adoptive children or parents seem to want to give up what they have.

I don’t know if anyone has any statistics about the outcomes of interracial adoptions. I wonder if the college graduation v rate of imprisonment, for example, is higher or lower for black kids adopted by white families etc. Anecdotally, the kids seem to turn out all right, but if someone has reliable statistics, please give them.

John:

“Here is how I view it: I accept many kinds of music but only tolerate others (like some of the stuff my daughter listens to).”

I think you’re confusing acceptance with personal preference. Say, sports, I like soccer more than basketball. I’m not accepting or tolerating either, I just like one more than the other. What I’m asking for is an example of something (e.g. affirmative action) that is a matter of principle. I believe just about any matter of principle can be split into acceptance or condemnation.

“I try accept people but only tolerate some kinds of their actions or lifestyles and do not accept others.”

I wasn’t talking specifically about certain people (although race may pertain to this subject). I’m just talking about the actions/lifestyles part. Say, for instance, some one cuts themself to relieve stress. I would condemn that as a self-abusive act that should be stopped. I wouldn’t tolerate it because that solves nothing. I guess that’s really my point. Tolerance serves no meaningful end.

John:
I for one, agree with everything you said (concerning homosexuality). But your words are falling on deaf ears. The only thing you will get at this site is ridicule for your religious beliefs. They like to quote the Bible, but they certainly do not believe it. They will talk all day about Jesus when it comes to love, compassion, and tolerance. Anything else we quote from the Bible is the cause of us being ignorant. Thank you for your courage to tell the truth.

Blaine,

You could at least wait for someone to say something before you blame them for saying it. Besides, homosexuality wasn’t the point here and I regret using it as an example because it seems to have distracted a few people.

Zeek

You mention the specific example of affirmative action for tolerance or acceptance.

Affirmative action has such a variety of permutations. If it means affirmatively seeking out the best candidate no matter his/her gender or race, it is a very good thing. If it means giving slight preference to individuals because people who look like people them have previously been the objects of discrimination, it is an acceptable thing. If it means trying to balance workforces and academic populations with those of the general community, it is a tolerable thing. And we should all fight against actual quotas or racial goals of any kind.

This is a good example of toleration v acceptance v resistance. Not only would many people disagree about the validity of certain types of affirmative action, we would not be sure where we crossed the various internal barriers. Over a wide section of specific situations, toleration would be the best course, since certainty would be impossible.

In fact, that is a good general case for toleration. We tolerate when we are not certain of the righteousness of our own position, don?t consider it an important enough issue to involve greater or we won’t or can?t do anything about it.

But I think we are talking more semantics than reality.

Jack,

If I could, I would make race inconsequential. Whoever is the best qualified would be the best candidate. I would not tolerate giving favor to any ethnicity over another because that is racist.

When you say we, “can’t do anything about it,” that applies to just about anything. So what you’re saying is that we should tolerate everything since we can’t (as individuals) do anything to stop it. My argument is that instead of tolerating it simply because you don’t have much power, take the stance against it and try to proliferate your beliefs.

Zeek said, “You could at least wait for someone to say something before you blame them for saying it.”

Well, if we had time to go back through every post, it would be easy to prove what I told John. You know it’s true.

Zeek

I try hard to proliferate my beliefs and do what is right. The problem is that there are only so many things a person can usefully do. When I hear someone say that he is concerned about everything and actively fighting injustice wherever he finds it, I know I have met an ineffective person (or someone who is exaggerating) You need to spend your time working on the things you can do something about. I mean YOU on ONE. There are many things I am unqualified or unable to do and that I have to leave to others.

You also once again neglect the element of uncertainty. None of us is always correct in our beliefs. If I fight hard even for those that are tangential, where I am not well informed, I not only waste my own time, but also probably do damage.

Blaine,

Thank you. This is the first time I’ve read and posted here. I just joined Yahoo! a couple weeks ago. I like it and will stay. I enjoy the banter here- so far. We can only speak our minds here; if some choose to attack or come across as arrogant, that is, unfortunately, what *they* have to deal with. I don’t like it, but will try not to retaliate. Take care.

Zeek,

I think maybe you’re right about my confusion, although it seems I can only tolerate the sounds coming out of my daughter’s room for only so long…

I should emphasise that my belief stems from my military background of standards. We in the military will not tolerate sexual harassment or racial discrimination (one caveat: people take both instances way too far sometimes due to maybe having thin skin and no sense of humor). Relaxing of those standards borders on acceptance and I for one will not lower or change my standards with the wind as is sometimes expected in the civilian world.

Thanks, Zeek, you’re helping me define my beliefs and think about many different things.

John,

I’m actually sorry I opened this Pandora’s box again…it can only lead to endless circuitous arguments that eventually lead to the only conclusion possible—faith is faith, and trying to prove or disprove faith is impossible because—by definition—faith is not based on proof at all (which is why laws should not be based on faith). Sigh…

Genesis 19:5 They called out to Lot and said, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so we can have sex with them!” Lot went out to them at the entrance and shut the door behind him. He said, “Don’t do [this] evil, my brothers.

Why did you leave out the bit about how Lot ended up offering his daughters in place of the men and the mob ended up raping them instead? This is hardly specific to homosexuality (if it was, the men would refuse to have sex with the women).

Leviticus 20:13 If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both committed an abomination.

You haven’t answered concerning Leviticus…do you agree that someone should be killed if they curse their parents? And do you approve of animal sacrifice?

Judges 19:22
While they were enjoying themselves, all of a sudden, perverted men of the city surrounded the house and beat on the door. They said to the old man who was the owner of the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him!”

Same story as before…see above

Romans 1:24 Therefore God delivered them over in the cravings of their hearts to sexual impurity, so that their bodies were degraded among themselves. 1:27 The males in the same way also left natural sexual intercourse with females and were inflamed in their lust for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the appropriate penalty for their perversion. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals…

I may have to give you the books of Paul…at least taken literally. My problem with Paul (and I’m far from the only one who thinks this) is that Paul 1) didn’t know Christ 2) didn’t learn from Christ’s disciples, and 3) is most likely basing his beliefs on existing books of the bible…which means the other ones that you’ve cited here. Do you know of examples from any of Christ’s actual apostles that condemn homosexuality?

1 Timothy 1:9
We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 1:10 for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching…

Now we’re getting into specific versions of the bible (which is one of the problems)…interesting that this newer translation that you cite decided to use the word ‘homosexual’ in place of the word ‘pervert’

Job 36:14 They die in their youth; their life [ends] among male cult prostitutes. (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

I have to admit you’ve taught me something new here…that picking and choosing passages is easier when you have contradictory versions of the bible to choose from. The one you’ve chosen to cite says ‘male cult prostitutes’, but the New American Standard versions just says ‘cult prostitutes’…The King James versions says ‘unclean’, the New Living Translation says ‘immoral living’, others say ‘sexual impurity’ or ‘defiled’…this is a vast difference in terms, especially when even the most direct ‘male cult prostitutes’ leaves one to wonder whether it is condeming homosexuality as opposed to prostitution. I do notice that the newer translations seem to be narrowing the meaning of this passage to converge more and more towards meaning homosexuality…interesting how that works.

It’s killing the parents and the milk and menstruation statements were for health, just like the laws regarding food and washing, etc.

Fine…so killing the parents is okay then???

As I stated in an earlier post, I’m a Christian man trying very hard to follow the tenets of my Lord and Savior. I believe my interpretation is not selective as you infer; whereas your picking some statements is selective. The Bible is meant to be read and understood as a whole. Sure, each book has its meaning, but it also is part of a very large picture that takes a long time to even start to understand.

Agreed…and part of understanding the book as a whole means taking into account the many possible (and proven) inaccuracies in translation, the many different versions, and the cultural and historical arena from which the books came. My main criticism of people who quote the bible as proof that something is a sin is that…while some insist that we should err on the side of life they apparently aren’t willing to err on the side of tolerance.

I don’t mean any of what I say as an attack on you personally, although I can understand how it could feel that way. I have had the same discussion many times before, so it gets frustrating.

Charles and John,

You guys seem to have so much time to learn about the bible, why not just learn Hebrew and Aramaic and read the original texts of the bible?

Jack,

“You need to spend your time working on the things you can do something about.”

I’m not saying that by condemning something you need to actively campaign against it. Just be against it and act accordingly.

“You also once again neglect the element of uncertainty. None of us is always correct in our beliefs.”

Can you give me an example in history, or even today, where uncertainty would not better have been acceptance? If there is an obvious reason for you to be against something, then you may be against it. However, if there is no obvious reason, it is probably because there is none to be found. Again, prove me wrong with an example.

“If I fight hard even for those that are tangential, where I am not well informed, I not only waste my own time, but also probably do damage.”

If you are not well-informed, you have no business condemning or accepting something. If the issue is of any significance, you would take the time to educate yourself on the matter. In such a case, tolerance is merely a form of laziness and I would eschew it.

Mr Wager,

I gave examples. I had no intention of picking and choosing. I did not decide to try to make myself look good by only citing one version, it was just a group of examples. Hamurabi gave us the first set of laws, the 10 Commandments came after and virtually mirrored those laws. Society’s laws are based from this more or less.

I don’t know of Lot actually handing his daughters over to the mob of men, just offering. I didn’t intentionally leave anything out, I just cut it short to stick to the point.

On Leviticus, the laws were pretty harsh back then and had to be to create some semblance of order. No, I don’t think cursing your parents today is cause for death. The Lord required animal sacrifice back then. He doesn’t require it anymore.

On Romans, why do any of the Apostles have to condemn homosexuality? It has been condemned in several other places already.

On Job and the cult prostitutes, I dislike your accusation that I’ve picked a version that suits my needs at this time. One has to go back to the original word that the Biblical translations now define as “male and female cult prostitutes”, “unclean”, “immoral living”, “sexual impurity”, and “defiled.” It may seem as though all of these definitions are worlds apart but they aren’t. It is like a branch from a tree that then has other branches on it. One can gleen several meanings out of the original Latin words on their own. But when you look at sentences and paragraphs you start to get the idea of what was meant. Hence we have different versions for the many different people who learn many different ways. Just because *Joe* understands the KJV doesn’t necessarily mean anyone else does. So, we have different translations that try to put Scripture in a language that others can learn from. To read one version of the Bible and not at least know of the others limits your perspective on God’s Word. To illustrate this a little we can take a word in the English language, disect it and find it’s root. We can then see where other similar words come from this same root word.

I really need to try to explain myself as best as possible the first time around. No, killing parents is not OK. I don’t believe I said anything to the contrary.

I understand your frustration. To not view this as a learning experience and approach it with a positive outlook is detrimental to all involved.

Zeek,

If you don’t want to hear it then don’t read the posts. I have already practiced such discipline on some of your posts, so I know it’s not that hard to do.

Zeek said:
Besides, homosexuality wasn’t the point here and I regret using it as an example because it seems to have distracted a few people.

You weren’t the first to bring up homosexuality as an example on this thread…unless you’re also posting as ‘Rob’. Besides, the original topic of this thread is so obscure that it’s hard to get a grasp on what is on topic. Your posts seem just as tangential to me as the posts on the bible apparently are to you. If anything, the original subject was: issues where the opposition is just incomprehensible. Well, there you go then—I’m on topic. I can’t comprehend why many people of faith insist on trying to prove their faith when by definition it cannot be proven.

Mr Wager,

I did a little research on Job 36:14. Here are some translations and please note the cross reference at the bottom.

The Latin Vulgate
morietur in tempestate anima eorum et vita eorum inter effeminatos
The Bible in Basic English
They come to their end while they are still young, their life is short like that of those who are used for sex purposes in the worship of their gods.
NASB
They die in youth, And their life {perishes} among the cult prostitutes*.
KJV
They die in youth, and their life is among the unclean*.
Douay-Rheims
Their soul shall die in a storm, and their life among the effeminate.
NLT
They die young after wasting their lives in immoral living
Young’s Literal Translation
Their soul dieth in youth, And their life among the defiled.

*Cross Reference- Deuteronomy
23:17 No Israelite woman is to be a cult prostitute, and no Israelite man is to be a cult prostitute.

John,

On Leviticus, the laws were pretty harsh back then and had to be to create some semblance of order. No, I don’t think cursing your parents today is cause for death.

My point with this was, how can you put so much stock in one line of Leviticus when only a few lines away Leviticus is saying something that is never taken literally? In fact, the vast majority of Leviticus is no longer taken literally.

On Romans, why do any of the Apostles have to condemn homosexuality? It has been condemned in several other places already.

I don’t see that it has been condemed in other places—just interpreted incorrectly to mean that. My previous post covered the other example you gave…from my perspective.

On Job and the cult prostitutes, I dislike your accusation that I’ve picked a version that suits my needs at this time.

I didn’t actually believe you picked a version to suit you…but I did wonder whether you has looked at and considered the other translations.

One has to go back to the original word that the Biblical translations now define as “male and female cult prostitutes”, “unclean”, “immoral living”, “sexual impurity”, and “defiled.” It may seem as though all of these definitions are worlds apart but they aren’t. It is like a branch from a tree that then has other branches on it. One can gleen several meanings out of the original Latin words on their own.

I agree…so let’s go back to the original word. Do you know what that word is? I don’t offhand…but I do know that the original language for the book of Job was Hebrew, not Latin.

Mr Wager,

I have nothing to prove and am not trying to prove anything. I’m just offering information. Discussing. I enjoy listening to and reading what others have to offer. I then put my ideas on the table.

Tangents are fine. Tangents are a way how great discussions occur.

Mr Wager,

At the moment I cannot find the Hebrew word, although I will keep looking.

I mentioned Lating because I believe that the original text was all translated to that language to get everything into one language.

As for the one line in Leviticus what about not needing certain laws after a time has gone by? No need for animal sacrifice anymore because Jesus took care of that forever. Just as a more modern example a law that was on the books say, in the 1800s saying it was illegal to spit on the sidewalk. It’s not polite and quite disgusting, but maybe there isn’t a need for that law today. Maybe not the best example I can come up with right now…

Mr Wager,

Here you go: Hebrew for “unclean”

qadesh
kaw-dashe’ from ‘qadash’ (6942); a (quasi) sacred person, i.e. (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry:— sodomite, unclean.

KJV and Strongs Hebrew Concordance

Mr Wager,

One last item and then I’m finished with this tangent unless someone wants to keep going.

The following is the Hebrew word for “death”:

muwth “mooth” a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively)

Not everyone who would for example “surely be put to death,” would literally die. They would be “dead” to others; shunned, etc.

“If the issue is of any significance, you would take the time to educate yourself on the matter. In such a case, tolerance is merely a form of laziness and I would eschew it.”

Zeek,

I think what Jack is trying to say, is that you fight the fights you can, and change the things you can change.
There are just some things that some people are incapable of understanding. The conversation between Charles and John for instance. I don’t get it. But I will not deny them the right to have it.

Zeek, I try to live my life by the axiom;
“Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

This isn’t a perfect world. Wanting it to be, while admirable, is a waste of time. We have to deal with it as it is, and move on.
That is not to say that we should be complacent in the face of injustice, however.
You have to fight the fights that you can win.

John and Charles,

This has been an interesting back and forth, but I wanted to jump back in to the reason for my post.

1) I wrote that once you take out the religious aspect there is no basis for a ban on gay marriage. The fact that this devolved into a debate over whether or not the bible specifically comes down against homosexuality lends support to(if not quite proves) my point.

2) I also wrote that it is fallacious to state that the 10 commandments forms the basis of our laws. Charles makes this error when he writes

“Society’s laws are based from this more or less.”

This is simply untrue. Commandments 1, 2, and 3 relate specifically to worshiping god. Sorry, but these are PROHIBITED from being part of our legal system.

Commandments 4, 9, and 10 relate to individual behavior (honoring mother and father, not coveting neighbor’s wife or goods) that are good advice for living an honorable life but are in no way reflected in our legal system.

Commandment 8 - bearing false witness. It is not against the law to gossip. It is important to note that the commandment deals with the behavior in and of itself whereas our legal system deals with the consequences of the behavior. To wit: it is against the law to lie under oath (which undermines our system of justice) or to lie about something that causes another grievous harm (libel or slander). These are two completely different perspectives and it is really a stretch to say that one is “based” on the other.

Commandments 5 and 7: stealing and killing. As I noted earlier, these are prohibited in Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, etc. societies. They are not derived from the 10 commandments.

Last but not least: commandment 6 (adultery). In some places there are still laws on the books prohibiting adultery but these laws are never enforced. This makes a good segue to wrap this up.

Preventing gay marriage is generally to