The Honorable Elijah Muhammad used to lie and say that, “the White Man IS the devil.” He was wrong, and a bit of a devil himself by saying it. What he should have said was that we all have the capacity to be devil-ish, and we should guard against that in our thoughts, words and deeds.
Dick Cheney is bucking to make truth of the original statement. Yearning to be relevant, he is on the tv machine again saying that torture works, diplomacy is weak, and “we don’t have much to apologize for.” His ridiculous statements are asinine, but they are driven by the same malice and soul-sucking greed that drove him to approve those tactics when we invaded a sovereign country under his tenure. His exstence makes us less safe. He is that original snake, pleading reasonableness with a forked tongue.
Ms. California is also vying for the title. No matter how many pearls you put on a pig, it’s still a pig. And no matter how much you dress up hate and bigotry, how many pageant gowns and fake smiles and bikinis, her response about marriage being between a man and a woman (followed by a mealy-mouthed explanation) was Dick Cheney in drag.
When you spew hate, you are the devil. It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white.
Spreading the Word
about the Art of the Possible and everything else
Woah, woah, woah! How is the following statement “hate”: “I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there”. (Taken verbatum from the link you provide)
She merely states her opinion. There is no hate there. It was an inappropriate question to ask at a beauty contest. These girls aren’t on trial for their personal beliefs. Totally the wrong forum.
Whether you agree with someone or not, using the label hate is highly ignorant. Disagreement with an issue does not mean you hate those who sit on the other side of the issue (though I do sense that you feel hate for this girl – which is the ultimate hipocracy on your part).
Marriage is not an inalienable right. We deny that right to minors and those lacking mental capacity. We deny that right to those which already exercise it (polygomy). Each of those prohibitions are the result of a collective moral question which society must answer. Society can only answer those questions through the consensus of its members. Gay marriage is gaining that consensus and will eventually find its way into most states (after all, it is a question of state law).
To spew hate toward those that draw their moral line at a different point than you, with no signs of animosity toward those it affects, makes you no better than the imaginary enemy you seek to discredit.
I feel that our constitution protects marital rights to all citizens (including homosexual citizens), but the current interpretation of the constitution in the courts does not support that. Often interracial marriage is looked to as a guidepost for the arguements in favor of gay marriage. The problem with that approach is that the two are viewed differently in a constitutional context. Race is a protected class under the bill of rights. Sexual orientation is not a protected class, and therefore different standards are applied to decisions for each group.
This was a shout back to your old posts, where blind accusations were cast without the thoughtfulness that has recently taken over your writing. Very disappointing.
I am intolerant of ignorance and bigotry. Whether one follows the Bible, the Torah, the Qur’an, the Vedas, believes in witchcraft, is agnostic, is atheist, or simply confused, I do not condone the bullshit line, “no offense to anyone out there.” It’s a passive aggressive way of telling people to go *^(*& themselves. Religious symbology and practices do not delineate the rights of citizens in this country. That same line was used to discriminate against Chinese immigrants, black people, and many others who are explicitly protected by the 14th Amendment. When we begin to qualify the rights protected by the collective morality, we’re in trouble. It may not be popular to call a pretty blond woman who spews hate speech with a smile out, but oh well. I’m not particularly concerned with being popular.
I am also not questioning where people draw their moral lines. I am simply stating that under the law, marriage is a civil (not religious) institution that should be available to all citizens.
A civil right like voting? That can be denied to citizens (felons). I’ve already pointed out other cases where marriage is denied to citizens. I believe polygamy is the best argument (though disfavored by advocates of gay marriage because it’s a frowned upon, where they don’t feel gay marriage is). If you have an absolute civil right to marry, where does it say that that civil right is limited to one spouse? What was Congress’ justification for preventing polygamy? To protect the sanctity of the family unit. It is an argument with substance, in a legal sense, regardless of where you sit on the issue personally.
Again, I won’t argue the issue with you, because frankly I agree with you. I just get so FRUSTRATED with all these open-minded liberals who call something hate speech simply because it disagrees with their views. People who view themselves as so enlightened can’t put themselves in their opponent’s shoes and envision a reason for their position besides “hate”. It is blind, inflammatory language that you have complained about so much with the Bush administration. His “fear mongering” about “terror” and an “Axis of Evil” is no different from your blind classification of Miss California’s answer as “hate speech.” It is designed to incite such strong emotion and put the recipient of your message in a position to where disagreeing with your point of view is repulsive.
I didn’t like it when Bush did it. I don’t like it when you do it. It’s talking down to your audience and not respecting their ability to reach their own conclusions.
Then the question becomes . . . at what point does the need to articulate one’s pov become “fear mongering”? The opponents of gay marriage have yet to articulate a position which addresses the issue that you and I agree on – frankly that it is no longer a religious institution. Hyperbole has its place in discourse, and you’re right it does come from frustration. I do believe that the discussion about gay marriage is based in hate, fear and insecurity. Am I not then allowed to say that because I believe that Christians who quote the Bible against gay marriage are being hypocritical? Does asking the question deny their ability or right to disagree with me on the issue? I don’t believe so. My purpose, then, is to have them address the issue at hand, rather than fall back on euphemisms and texts which don’t apply to the situation at hand because that is safer for them emotionally and intellectually.
It’s part of the reason my posts have been so sporadic lately. There appears to be little purpose in the discourse because none are willing to address the same issue. Talking points and spin are the mainstay. Perhaps my pov has narrowed. Perhaps I’ve simply grown tired of attempting rational discourse (both in person and online) with pimps pushing product when I’m looking for people searching for truth. Take for example your discussion of polygamy. I hadn’t thought of that. Truthfully, though my initial reaction was to dismiss it, I believe that it does fall in the category of legislated morality. While I think it’s a bit different (though not by much, the more I think about it). But this conversation is relatively unique, at least in my experience. I don’t demonize those who disagree. I demonize those whom I feel are disingenuous.