SIXHIRB

“Unfriended” for Judge Judy | Traditional Marriage Now Bigoted

Published by Papa Giorgio

a friends mom’s on Facebook posted this “meme/quote” and tagged me in it. So, I responded to it with what lies below. I wish to note a few things about the “interaction” that followed. Firstly, this action taken by D.N. (friend’s mom) proves yet again that conservatives are much more tolerant than liberals. A study shows that “liberals more likely to block social-media friends over political differences,” here is DAILY CALLER’S take:

According to a new poll from the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, self-described liberals are twice as likely than self-described conservatives to block material on social networking websites that they find politically disagreeable.

Thirty-six percent of social media users said they have blocked, “unfriended” or hidden someone because of politics, but left-leaning participants were far more likely to have taken that action to express disagreement about a friend’s political views.

“Liberals are the most likely to have taken … steps to block, unfriend, or hide” disagreeable political messages, Pew concluded. “In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS [social networking sites] because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.”

Sixteen percent of liberal users said they blocked someone who posted something specific that they disagreed with, compared to eight percent of conservative users.

Liberals are also far more likely than conservatives — 11 percent compared with 4 percent — to completely delete friends from social networking sites because they disagree with their politics.

There has been no word — nor will there likely be any — about whether liberals will enjoy reading this story. Many, if the Pew study is to be believed, will just block it from their news feeds.

Which happened, I was “unfriended.” But here is the kicker, the week prior D.N. got onto my FaceBook and essentially called me a small minded racist bigot! And I quote our conversation:

(She said) “Black people and white people weren’t allowed get married years ago either… if small minded, bigoted people had their way it would still be that way. Gay marriage Is NO different…. religious folks who believe and support same sex marriage ?? They must not be real religious people.”

(I Responded) In other words, a discussion to you is calling me and other readers here “bigots,” and impugning the character of religious gays by creating straw-man arguments of what I (we) say/mean? And when I politely point this out by not pointing out how you name call and use “cards” (sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted ~ S.I.X.H.I.R.B.)….

An interesting thought just came to mind as well. In our previous conversation she mentioned that there are religiously left-leaning people, and that I shouldn’t hold back or discount their thinking, but take into account their thinking BECAUSE they are religious. This was not clearly stated by her, but it was implied. Yet, she apparently does not see the self-refuting aspect of the graphic she posted on her own FaceBook and her previous statement to me. How convenient that she doesn’t practice what she expects others to hold to. If you are conservative and religious, you have no right to force your feelings on people. If you are liberal and religious, game-on!

I didn’t unfriend her? She got onto my FaceBook and called me a racist bigot. Yet, I pointed out the flaws in Judge Judy’s quote and for this, I was ex-communicated. Why? Because leftism is the dominant religion of her being. Here is what I wrote, and what I was doing is making two points that the Judge characterized wrongly the debate with:

  1. that this is a solely religious argument, and;
  2. she herself is pushing her morality on others.

Here we go:

This isn’t a religious argument? For instance, here is an atheist gay man explaining why he is against same-sex marriage:

One of the most respected Canadian sociologist/scholar/homosexual, Paul Nathanson, writes that there are at least five functions that marriage serves–things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:

✫ Foster the bonding between men and women
✫ Foster the birth and rearing of children
✫ Foster the bonding between men and children
✫ Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
✫ Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults

Note that Nathanson considers these points critical to the continued survival of any culture. He continues “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, … every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.”

Going further he stated that “same sex marriage is a bad idea” …[he] only opposed “gay marriage, not gay relationships.”

And then I posted this short video of another gay man explaining the importance of marriage and how same-sex marriage will undefine it:

Then I zeroed in on the statement that religious people are “forcing their morality on other.” I quoted the following mock-conversation to make the point clear via an old philosophy paper of mine:

You Shouldn’t Force Your Morality On Me! [1]

First Person: “You shouldn’t force your morality on me.”

Second Person: “Why not?”

First Person: “Because I don’t believe in forcing morality.”

Second Person: “If you don’t believe in it, then by all means, don’t do it. Especially don’t force that moral view of yours on me.”

First Person: “You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”

Second Person: “I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that statement. Do you mean I have no right to an opinion?”

First Person: “You have a right to you’re opinion, but you have no right to force it on anyone.”

Second Person: “Is that your opinion?”

First Person: “Yes.”

Second Person: “Then why are you forcing it on me?”

First Person: “But your saying your view is right.”

Second Person: “Am I wrong?”

First Person: “Yes.”

Second Person: “Then your saying only your view is right, which is the very thing you objected to me saying.”

First Person: “You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”

Second Person: “Correct me if I’m misunderstanding you here, but it sounds to me like your telling me I’m wrong.”

First Person: “You are.”

Second Person: “Well, you seem to be saying my personal moral view shouldn’t apply to other people, but that sounds suspiciously like you are applying your moral view to me.  Why are you forcing your morality on me?”

SELF-DEFEATING

“Most of the problems with our culture can be summed up in one phrase: ‘Who are you to say?’” – Dennis Prager.  So lets unpack this phrase and see how it is self-refuting, or as Tom Morris[2] put it, self-deleting.

When someone says, “Who are you to say?” answer with, “Who are you to say ‘Who are you to say’?” [3]

This person is challenging your right to correct another, yet she is correcting you.  Your response to her amounts to “Who are you to correct my correction, if correcting in itself is wrong?” or “If I don’t have the right to challenge your view, then why do you have the right to challenge mine?”  Her objection is self-refuting; you’re just pointing it out.

The “Who are you to say?” challenge fails on another account.  Taken at face value, the question challenges one’s authority to judge another’s conduct.  It says, in effect, “What authorizes you to make a rule for others?  Are you in charge?”  This challenge miscasts my position.  I don’t expect others to obey me simply because I say so.  I’m appealing to reason, not asserting my authority.  It’s one thing to force beliefs; it’s quite another to state those beliefs and make an appeal for them. 

The “Who are you to say?” complaint is a cheap shot.  At best it’s self-defeating.  It’s an attempt to challenge the legitimacy of your moral judgments, but the statement itself implies a moral judgment.  At worst, it legitimizes anarchy!

[1] Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air (Baker Books; 1998), p. 144-146.

[2]Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies (IDG Books; 1999), p. 46

[3] Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air (Baker Books; 1998), p. 144-146.”

I ended with the “you aren’t doing this debate/discussion/national dialogue and good by posting un-truths like the above Judge Judy quote” type finisher. As she unfriended me she said I was saying wacko things? Personally, the above is astute, full of knowledge and close to the heart information by gay men.

In a final word to me, D.N. mentioned that one of her sons said this would happen.

I asked “what would happen?”

Did her son say that I WOULD NOT unfriended her for calling me a small minded racist bigot on my own FaceBook?

Did he say to her that SHE WOULD unfriend me after I pointed to gay men themselves speaking the truth about the immutability of the heterosexual union?

Her son said that would happen?

I don’t think so.

And she is one who would say that the right is creating an air of divisiveness. What a crazy, unthinking, low-voter information world we live in.

One last point not included in the original conversation, but that I believe to be salient to the tactic used by Judge Judy and the myriad of other who think such statements make sense.

Use Judge Judy’s own words against them in regards to these other examples where Christianity led the way,

  • “They have no right to impose their feelings on the rest of us.”

…Such “exclude religion” arguments are wrong because marriage is not a religion! When voters define marriage, they are not establishing a religion. In the First Amendment, “Con­gress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the word “religion” refers to the church that people attend and support. “Religion” means being a Baptist or Catholic or Presbyterian or Jew. It does not mean being married. These arguments try to make the word “religion” in the Constitution mean something different from what it has always meant.

These arguments also make the logical mistake of failing to distinguish the reasons for a law from the content of the law. There were religious reasons behind many of our laws, but these laws do not “establish” a religion. All major religions have teachings against stealing, but laws against stealing do not “establish a religion.” All religions have laws against murder, but laws against murder do not “establish a religion.” The cam­paign to abolish slavery in the United States and England was led by many Christians, based on their religious convictions, but laws abolishing slavery do not “establish a reli­gion.” The campaign to end racial discrimination and segregation was led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist pastor, who preached against racial injustice from the Bible. But laws against discrimination and segregation do not “establish a religion.”

If these “exclude religion” arguments succeed in court, they could soon be applied against evangelicals and Catholics who make “religious” arguments against abortion. Majority votes to protect unborn children could then be invalidated by saying these vot­ers are “establishing a religion.” And, by such reasoning, all the votes of religious citizens for almost any issue could be found invalid by court decree! This would be the direct opposite of the kind of country the Founding Fathers established, and the direct oppo­site of what they meant by “free exercise” of religion in the First Amendment.

[….]

Historian Alvin Schmidt points out how the spread of Christianity and Christian influence on government was primarily responsible for outlawing infanticide, child abandonment, and abortion in the Roman Empire (in AD 374); outlawing the brutal battles-to-the-death in which thousands of gladiators had died (in 404); outlawing the cruel punishment of branding the faces of criminals (in 315); instituting prison reforms such as the segregating of male and female prisoners (by 361); stopping the practice of human sacrifice among the Irish, the Prussians, and the Lithuanians as well as among other nations; outlawing pedophilia; granting of property rights and other protections to women; banning polygamy (which is still practiced in some Muslim nations today); prohibiting the burning alive of widows in India (in 1829); outlawing the painful and crippling practice of binding young women’s feet in China (in 1912); persuading government officials to begin a system of public schools in Germany (in the sixteenth century); and advancing the idea of compulsory education of all children in a number of European countries.

During the history of the church, Christians have had a decisive influence in opposing and often abolishing slavery in the Roman Empire, in Ireland, and in most of Europe (though Schmidt frankly notes that a minority of “erring” Christian teachers have supported slavery in various centuries). In England, William Wilberforce, a devout Christian, led the successful effort to abolish the slave trade and then slavery itself throughout the British Empire by 1840.

In the United States, though there were vocal defenders of slavery among Christians in the South, they were vastly outnumbered by the many Christians who were ardent abolitionists, speaking, writing, and agitating constantly for the abolition of slavery in the United States. Schmidt notes that two-thirds of the American abolitionists in the mid-1830s were Christian clergymen, and he gives numerous examples of the strong Christian commitment of several of the most influential of the antislavery crusaders, including Elijah Lovejoy (the first abolitionist martyr), Lyman Beecher, Edward Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe (author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin), Charles Finney, Charles T. Torrey, Theodore Weld, William Lloyd Garrison, “and others too numerous to mention.” The American civil rights movement that resulted in the outlawing of racial segregation and discrimination was led by Martin Luther King Jr., a Christian pastor, and supported by many Christian churches and groups.

There was also strong influence from Christian ideas and influential Christians in the formulation of the Magna Carta in England (1215) and of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787) in the United States. These are three of the most significant documents in the history of governments on the earth, and all three show the marks of significant Christian influence in the foundational ideas of how governments should function.

Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010], 31, 49-50.

BONUS

This WALL STREET JOURNAL article is a related (to the video/audio) herein. This audio was uploaded March 28, 2013:

NELSON LUND: A SOCIAL EXPERIMENT WITHOUT SCIENCE BEHIND IT

Advocates of same-sex marriages can’t back up claims about positive long-term effects.

By Nelson Lund (March 26, 2013)

The Supreme Court is hearing two cases this week that represent a challenge to one of the oldest and most fundamental institutions of our civilization. In Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, the court is being asked to rule that constitutional equal protection requires the government to open marriage to same-sex couples.

The claimed right to same-sex marriage is not in the Constitution or in the court’s precedents, so the court must decide whether to impose a new law making marriage into a new and different institution. The justices are unlikely to take so momentous a step unless they are persuaded that granting this new right to same-sex couples will not harm children or ultimately undermine the health of our society.

A significant number of organizations representing social and behavioral scientists have filed briefs promising the court that there is nothing to worry about. These assurances have no scientific foundation. Same-sex marriage is brand new, and child rearing by same-sex couples remains rare. Even if both phenomena were far more common, large amounts of data collected over decades would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific estimates of the long-term effects of redefining marriage.

The conclusions in the research literature typically amount at best to claims that a particular study found “no evidence” of bad effects from child rearing by same-sex couples. One could just as easily say that there is no reliable evidence that such child-rearing practices are beneficial or harmless. And that is the conclusion that should be relevant to the court.

Social-science advocacy organizations, however, have promoted the myth that a lack of evidence, so far, of bad effects implies the nonexistence of such effects. This myth is based on conjecture or faith, not science.

Nor is the leap of faith from “no evidence” to “don’t worry” an accident. The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, himself a distinguished social scientist at Harvard, once observed: “Social science is rarely dispassionate, and social scientists are frequently caught up in the politics which their work necessarily involves . . . [T]he pronounced ‘liberal’ orientation of sociology, psychology, political science, and similar fields is well established.”

This orientation has been on rich display in the research on same-sex parenting, which is scientific primarily in the sense that it is typically conducted by people with postgraduate degrees. There are no scientifically reliable studies at all, nor could there be, given the available data. Yet the Supreme Court has been solemnly assured by many scientific organizations, such as the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, that the overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that same-sex couples are every bit the equal of opposite-sex parents in every relevant respect. The number of studies may be overwhelming but the evidence assuredly is not.

The prominent National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, for instance, relied on a sample recruited entirely at lesbian events, in women’s bookstores and through lesbian newspapers. Other studies relied on samples as small as 18 or 33 or 44 cases. The effect of parenting by male homosexual couples remains in the realm of anecdotes. Most research has relied on reports by parents about their children’s well-being while the children were still under the care of those parents. Even a social scientist should be able to recognize that parents’ evaluations of their own success as parents might be a little skewed.

In 2012, sociologist Loren Marks conducted a detailed re-analysis of 59 studies of parenting by gays and lesbians that were cited by the American Psychological Association in a 2005 publication. Mr. Marks, who teaches at Louisiana State University, concluded that the association drew inferences that were not empirically warranted.

There has been only one study using a large randomized sample, objective measures of well-being, and reports of grown children rather than their parents. This research, by Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas Austin, found that children raised in a household where a parent was involved in a same-sex romantic relationship were at a significant disadvantage with respect to a number of indicators of well being—such as depression, educational attainment and criminal behavior—compared with children of intact biological families.

One might expect this work at least to raise a caution flag, but it has been vociferously attacked on methodological grounds by the same organizations that tout the value of politically congenial research that suffers from more severe methodological shortcomings. This is what one expects from activists, not scientists.

As everyone knows, some states have begun to experiment with legalizing same-sex marriage, and public opinion seems to be shifting in favor of the change. Perhaps this will work out well, and the overwhelming majority of states that have been more cautious will eventually catch up. But experiments are never guaranteed to succeed, and one advantage of democracy is that it allows failed experiments to be abandoned. If the Supreme Court constitutionalizes a right to same-sex marriage, however, there will be no going back. The court cannot possibly know that it is safe to take this irrevocable step.

Mr. Lund is a professor at George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, Va. This article is based on an amicus curiae brief in support of the petitioners in Hollingsworth v. Perry, filed on behalf of Leon R. Kass (University of Chicago), Harvey C. Mansfield (Harvard University), and the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.

“Bigot!” – Discussing Same-Sex Marriage with a Leftist

Published by Papa Giorgio

In all my discussions with people about the “hot-button issue” of today, same-sex-marriage, I see a theme. And that is, bias. Not an admitted bias, or a healthy bias, one flirting with fascism. “FASCISM! How can you say that Papa Giorgio!?” Easy, a position is taken not on the reasonableness of the argument taken, but by painting the other side as bigoted, in a sense, evil, one wields power (through legislation) over a person who disagrees with such a proposition:

“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition….  If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity….  From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.” — Mussolini

Mussolini, Diuturna pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.

(Moving on) I came across a great short post to start out my example of an actual discussion where I and others on my Facebook (gay or straight) are painted as bigots if they disagree with the liberal-progressive view of the debate. Here it is, and it comes from Kevin Halloran’s site:

So what does unteachabilty look like?

  • Don’t take notes, don’t read books, or learn anything unless it’s the bare minimum or what’s essential for exam purposes.
  • Don’t ask questions or attempt anything that might reveal your ignorance or risk you looking stupid.
  • Don’t accept responsibility for your failures but blame anyone and everyone else.
  • Don’t seek or accept one-to-one personal guidance or mentoring from parents, teachers, pastors, elders, etc.
  • Don’t listen, but talk, talk, talk about yourself, especially when you’re with someone you could learn a lot from.
  • Don’t take criticism or correction without resentment or retaliation.
  • Resist moving out of personal comfort zones in work, study, ministry, or relationships, but always look for the easy and familiar route.
  • Don’t read, listen to, or learn anything that challenges existing presuppositions, practices, and prejudices.

The stubbornness of the other side can also be exemplified in a conversation with two young people “A Tale of Two Conversations w/Younger Persons On FaceBook.”

In this conversation, I tried to give examples, explain, analogize, and the like. Finally I just had to point out that the person involved was acting like a child in name-calling. I will post the two conversations going on with the same person, separately. Two separate issues engendered conversation via a linked article posted to my Facebook wall, “Gay Marriage Is the Media’s Vehicle, Destination Is to Destroy the Church.” I will post the shorter of the two conversations so one can get a feel for what I am dealing with.

The first subject challenged from within the article dealt with this sentence:

  • If anyone wants to argue that the same government currently forcing religious institutions to purchase the abortion pill through ObamaCare will not eventually use civil rights violations in order to attempt to force the Church to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies — good luck with that. (emphasized)

Here is her first challenge:

DEB

What’s an abortion pill? The morning after pill is not an abortion pill- don’t be ignorant.

ME

“Also known as mifepristone, mifeprex, RU486, or medication abortion, the abortion pill is an FDA-approved medication which results in abortion. In most cases, the abortion pill ends pregnancy safely and privately in the comfort of your own home…. Mifepristone, taken orally, blocks the action of the pregnancy hormone progesterone. This causes the pregnancy to detach from the uterine wall and stop growing. Misoprostol, a prostaglandin medication, is also used to cause uterine cramps which expel blood and the pregnancy tissue from the uterus.”

I will repeat: “...the abortion pill ends pregnancy…. This causes the pregnancy to detach from the uterine wall and stop growing.” It is the ending a boy/girls life during a stage of their growth.

    • Using 2 different medicines to end your pregnancy: mifepristone and misoprostol.
    • Using only misoprostol to end your pregnancy.

(PLANNED PARENTHOOD)

    • A step-by-step look at how these drugs end pregnancy

(SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN)

    • The abortion pills work to end the pregnancy over 98% of the time. Around 2% of people will still need a uterine aspiration after using the pills if their pregnancy doesn’t end or if they have heavy bleeding.

(NATIONAL ABORTION FENEDERATION)

DEB

The morning after pill is not an abortion- that is ridiculous

ME

I quoted a medical website Deb in regards to RU486. It ends, in the beginning stages what is — IS — a viable human life.

DEB

Completely untrue- the medical site is not legitimate.

At this point I went to the makers website and grabbed from their “facts” section the following (again, directly from their website):

ME

From Mifeprex’s own website Deb:

Q: Is Mifeprex used to prevent pregnancy?

A: No. Mifeprex is used to end an early pregnancy. It is not indicated for use to prevent pregnancy. Emergency contraception drugs are indicated to prevent pregnancy.

Q: At what point during pregnancy is Mifeprex approved for use?

A: Mifeprex is FDA-approved for ending early pregnancy. Early pregnancy means it is 49 days (7 weeks) or less since your last menstrual period began.

Okay, she didn’t respond after that. Maybe the corner seemed too tight, because she came out swinging on another issue. She basically used a tactic very popular on the Left nowadays. That is, paint your opposition as evil, or as Prager would say in his acronym: S.I.X.H.I.R.B. “Bigot” is the “B” in that acronym, in case you were wondering.

Here we go:

DEB

Black people and white people weren’t allowed get married years ago either… if small minded, bigoted people had their way it would still be that way. Gay marriage Is NO different

…just my opinion.

To be clear, she just equalized the belief in the traditional definition of marriage with prejudice and racism. (Moral equivalency is the track record of the Left.) Thus, the person removes the need to deal with a response. I mean, who would want to argue with a racist and a bigot? This has caused a laziness in the liberal community and interferes with the intellectual growth and learning curve. In fact, a liberal professor says this hurts the youth he see’s going through his class. Yet, this same harmful egalitarian name-calling is what is the bulwark of the Democrat Party.

SIXHIRB Hurts Intellectual Growth

A liberal professor interviewed in Indoctrinate U explains that protecting and teaching from one ideological viewpoint insulates students who are liberal to properly defend and coherently explain their views in the real world — outside the classroom. This excerpt is taken from two parts, Part 1 is here, and Part 2 is here. 

Continuing with my response:

ME

(Topic change. Like when I answer the challenge about the Bible not being changed over a 2,000 year period, and instead of camping out and seeing if their own challenge was correct… the skeptic will bring up how a good god could exists if there is so much evil around. Never doing the hard work of regulating their thinking to see if it comports to truth.)

DEB, you are using a non-sequitur argument (“an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises”). It is fallacious thinking, and whether it is your opinion or not has no bearing on the sloppy logic involved. In other words, your personal truth is incoherent.

Being black/white/asian/etc is immutable. A black man cannot cease being a black man, his characteristic is unchangeable, and thus fit under the 14th amendment. People change their sexual preference all the time, there are many cases of gays and persons who even have gone all the way through a sex change that deal with their core issues and renounce being gay, or the opposite gender. In other words it is a mutable characteristic.

The other point is that there is scientific differences between the genders (male/female). There is not between a male black man and a male white man….

[QUOTE]

The argument, repeated so often that it sounds incontestable, is this: Just as parts of American society once had immoral laws that forbade whites and blacks from marrying, so, today, society continues to have immoral laws forbidding men from marrying men and women from marrying women. And just as decent people overthrew the former, decent people must overthrow the latter.

[….]

But the equation is false.

First, there is no comparison between sex and race.

There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational;

On the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not.

The second reason the parallel between opposing same-sex marriage and opposing interracial marriage is invalid is that opposition to marriage between races is a moral aberration while opposition to marrying a person of the same sex is the moral norm. In other words, none of the moral bases of American society, whether religious or secular, opposed interracial marriage — not Judaism, not Christianity, not Judeo-Christian values, not deism, not humanism, not the Enlightenment. Yes, there were religious and secular individuals who opposed interracial marriage, but by opposing interracial marriage, they were advocating something against all Judeo-Christian and secular norms, all of which saw nothing wrong in members of different races intermarrying (members of different religions was a different matter).

On the other hand, no religious or secular moral system ever advocated same-sex marriage.

[….]

But as objectionable as hubris is, false comparisons are worse. And there is no comparison between different races and the different genders. There are no inherent racial differences; there are significant differences between the sexes. To the extent that racial groups are different, they are only because their cultures differ. But a black man’s nature is not different from that of a white man, an Asian man, an Hispanic man.

The same is not true of sex differences. Males and females are inherently different from one another. We now know that even their brains differ. And those differences are significant. Thus, to oppose interracial marriage is indeed to engage in bigotry, but to oppose same-sex marriage is not. It simply shares the wisdom of every moral system that preceded us — society is predicated on men and women bonding with one another in a unique way called “marriage.”

Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is ultimately a way of declaring the moral superiority of proponents of same-sex marriage to proponents of keeping marriage defined as man-woman. And it is a way of avoiding hard issues such as whether we really want all children to grow up thinking it doesn’t matter if they marry a boy or a girl and whether we really want to abolish forever the ideal of husband-wife based family.

(COLUMN)

DEB

Geez- how great your opinions are and your quotes- you must be right? And those religious folks who believe and support same sex marriage ?? They must not be real religious people.

Hours before the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Tuesday over California’s ban on gay marriage, hundreds of same-sex marriage supporters will gather a block away from the courthouse at an interfaith church service to ask for God’s “love and justice” and to pray for “the dignity of all souls as a religious value,” according to organizers. Afterwards, the coalition of Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Mormons and Buddhists, among other religious and secular representatives, will march to the courthouse steps to rally in support of gay marriage, with thousands of attendees expected.

Again, I want to point out what Deb is saying. The logical conclusion of her above statement is essentially this: “religious people believe in same-sex marriage, therefore, either you are saying they cannot be religious [true Buddhists, true Christians, etc], or religion and same-sex marriage are not in conflict.” She has accused me, essentially, of judging whether someone is (of my faith) is saved or not. Truly religious or not. I have never said such a thing in this or previous conversations. Although, I can show the inherent self-refuting aspect of non-Christian religions. But that is neither here-nor-there. We continue:

ME

I know religious gay people Deb? That has nothing to do with the conversation? What does a gay man or woman being a Christian have to do with anything? Please, answer this statement you made, that is — AGAIN — a non sequitur: “…religious folks who believe and support same sex marriage ?? They must not be real religious people.”

How does the argument you made follow from the premise? Do you think that changing law and culture of all mankind and religious faith is followed from such an argument? An argument that is fallacious and emotionally rooted? Painting those who do not agree as calling others inauthentic? You really should spend a few minutes and listen to this whole 16-minutes. I mean listen — don’t verbalize out loud, walk away, etc. Sit down and listen, for 16-minutes:

You are saying if one is religious and supports something, then they must be authentic and what they support must be healthy for society. Have you connected the dots yet that this tact you use, like this from a previous conversation, “don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one,” is merely an emotional plea. “Religious” folk yell “God hates fags!!!!” ~ because they are “religious” they must also base their conclusions on the sound understanding of Scripture? Right? Your reasons that you have intimated as to how you vote are a great marker to how most vote:

“don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one,”
“don’t believe in slavery, don’t own one”

This does nothing to deal with the baby being human or not.

You seem to be saying that because religious people support SSM, it is therefore (ergo; walla; alakazam) good for society to put its stamp of approval on. So I can say, USING YOU LOGIC DEB, that,

“Because religious people smoke, society should accept it as a healthy lifestyle.” People who disagree with you you would deride thusly: “…religious folks who believe and support smoking?? They must not be real religious people.”

(Argumentum ad passiones: is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient’s emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument.) Do you see Deb? I am asking you a serious question right now. “Do you see how your appeal to emotion is not an argument at all?” It makes no sense. So when the media talks about “low-information voters” ~ well.

[….]

I expect you to be an adult and answer AT LEAST that last question Deb. At some point in one’s life, hiding behind the facade of adulthood doesn’t protect one from dealing with real, important, issues… and how one comes to conclusions and changes society with those resources. Jusssst mayybee… this is a clarion call for you to become serious with that thing rattling around up there. Move to “stage two thinking” in other words. Put down the romance or mystery novels, and pick up a book. This is class time here on my FB.

And for those reading this exchange, a good person can be against SSM: “Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage” (COLUMN)

…. The history of left-wing policies has largely consisted of doing what feels good and compassionate without asking what the long-term consequences will be; what Professor Thomas Sowell calls “Stage One Thinking.” That explains, for example, the entitlement state. It sounds noble and seems noble. But the long-term consequences are terrible: economic ruin, a demoralized population, increasing selfishness as people look to the state to take care of their fellow citizens, and more.

By redefining marriage to include same sex couples we are playing with sexual and societal fire. Just as the entitlement state passes on the cost of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren – unsustainable dependency and debt — so, too, same-sex marriage will pass along the consequences of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren – gender confusion and the loss of motherhood and fatherhood as values, just to cite two obvious consequences.

It is not enough to mean well in life. One must also do well. And the two are frequently not the same thing.

There are reasons no moral thinker in history ever advocated same-sex marriage.

DEB

Shaun [she misspells my name] – your comments and attitude are a bit rude and bully like- in my opinion. You are pushing me further away. Maybe it is just your superior brain? Lol

ME

Deb, your arguments you make, here, are arguments that are fallacious. You chase yourself away.

Have you never…

never[?]

… had your ideas challenged in a cogent way before? Do you think persons that understand proper thinking, argumentation internalize their hearing you talk about important topics in the manner you do and wag their head? You came here and expressed yourself, I cannot explain how this expression is incoherent? Would you just stop saying such loosey-goosey things here and continue to make them (non-sequitur/argumentum ad passiones) elsewhere to others. Maybe even in public? You should take the above as an opportunity to hone your arguments… or continue in non-thought/incoherence.

If being shown how your arguments are fallacious, and this angers you, I cannot help you in this. The onus is on you in how you respond or take correction. Taking correction well in our relativistic society is tough, granted. I applaud you for wading into my FB, but when you do come here ~ good, rational, linear thinking is often required… especially for changing the meaning of something for the first time in mankind’s history, and thinking there will be no societal consequences.

So you are saying correction to bad arguments chases you away? Making incoherent statements brings you closer?

DEB

I don’t want an argument… I would enjoy a discussion maybe that’s the difference

ME

You have to make points in a discussion that are coherent. You are making statements that make no sense… literally? You are tugging on peoples heart strings without engaging their mind. People should vote with the later by-the-by. Too many people vote with their emotions.

You accused me (and others) of something, but you didn’t catch it apparently. Which is fine, when you talk in the language of post-modern thought, many do not realize what they are logically concluding. Maybe you can tell me what the logical conclusion of YOU (@Deb) were telling people (really, half of the United States citizens) they believe — tell me, please:

QUOTING DEB:

“Black people and white people weren’t allowed get married years ago either… if small minded, bigoted people had their way it would still be that way. Gay marriage Is NO different…. religious folks who believe and support same sex marriage ?? They must not be real religious people.”

Please explain why I am being — how did you put it — rude and bully like — and you are not?

[….]

In other words, a discussion to you is calling me and other readers here “bigots,” and impugning the character of religious gays by creating straw-man arguments of what I (we) say/mean? And when I politely point this out by not pointing out how you name call and use “cards” (sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted ~ S.I.X.H.I.R.B.), you are being chased away?

[….]

DEB? Can you see how you are encapsulating discussion wrongly? You can answer with a simple “yes” or “no.”

DEB

NO

ME

So, Deb, calling me a bigot, and saying Jesus, Moses, Buddha, and other major world religious founders, texts, great moral thinkers are ALL bigots… is NOT rude. But me pointing out that in those statements are things learned your first semester in philosophy (how to think properly) at any university (non-sequiturs, straw-men, and argument from emotion) is rude and borderline bullying?! What a crazy world we live in. Talk about elitist thinking.

Take note as well that Deb is calling Tammy Bruce (a lesbian), Paul Nathanson (a gay man), and someone like Walt Heyer (a man who was surgically changed into a woman [mutilated], and now lives as a man again) bigots as well. Oh the twisted thinking involved in the left. (*Dramatic back of hand to the forehead pose*)

Maybe they (the gays mentioned above) just don’t know better and they need people like Deb and other elitist thinking progressives to change their mind for them… not with sound argumentation and linear thinking… just by calling them names. And painting them as bullies if they disagree.

Can you believe this?

What came to mind next is all the leftist clap-trap that Republicans are creating an atmosphere of dissent and polarization, which is my next point in the conversation:

In case you didn’t know Deeez, it is Republicans polarizing and dividing the American political landscape.

DEB

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person who is or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverb
It’s not for me to say… Everyone can decide for their self if the are or are not a bigot.

ME

Again, you are calling gay men and women bigots, not me. You are calling the majority of religious people bigots, not me. No one is treating a race or ethnic group (immutable characteristics), or in this case gays (mutable characteristics) “with hatred and intolerance.” You are inferring this via fallacious — emotional — argument to win a point in your own mind and to paint the opposition because you cannot answer them.

Most of the people I have dinner with (that are gay) are ones who would want judges (all judges) to stay out of the decisions states make. And these gay men (and women) would want exceptions made for religious institutions and organizations. The Democratic Party does not.

Again, to be clear, YOU have called all major world religious founders and religious leaders and great moral thinkers as well as gay men and women BIGOTS, simply because they disagree with you.

If you had answered “Yes” earlier, you would have shown some humility in understanding what you have done // are doing.

I myself do not hang around with racists, bigots, or the like. Why on God’s green earth would you argue, call names to, discuss, anything with one? Deb? Unless you don’t believe your own rhetoric.

[….]

And to be clear Deb, you did call me, other gays, and a large swath of religious people bigots. You *DIDN’T* let others make up their own mind. So you were not truthful when you said, “It’s not for me to say.”

⚥ Again, you said: “Black people and white people weren’t allowed get married years ago either… if small minded, bigoted people had their way it would still be that way. Gay marriage Is NO different”

Ergo, people who disagree with you, are bigots. No wiggle room. And now I firmly believe you when you said, “I don’t want an argument…“, I know. You would rather paint others as bigots, racists, and ignorant. And if someone shows you how your “discussion” is fallacious with any semblance of intelligence, they are bullies.

DEB

Not sure why you care what I think since my ideas are so fluffy and I get them from romance novels or whatever. I think the people who protested inter racial marriages where bigots and the same can be said of those whose protest gays right to wed. My opinion… Which is not allowed is Sean’s world – right?

ME

Just because you have a right to an opinion does not mean you have a right to whitewash people as bigots by making (*echo chamber noise effects to make the point clear*) NON-SEQUITUR, EMOTIONAL APPEAL, AND STRAW-MAN statements about people. It is fallacious thinking/speaking. So you are saying that your opinion is wrong (incoherent) and damn all others for even pointing that out.

Another analogy, it is like you are saying, “what does the color green smell like.” It doesn’t make sense. And, not only that, your opinion is a form of bigotry itself.

The conversation has effectively stalled here. She refuses to “discuss” any more the topic… just go on making statements that have nothing to do with the topic. Living in a bubble of rhetoric and opinion, with a flare for bumper sticker verbiage. Its sad, really, because you know this is how a large portion of the voters think. What is referred to as the “low-information” voter. There is no understanding of our great history, culture, and the like. Just how one feels at this moment. Again, sad.

Marked for Being White! Federally Funded History Repeating Itself

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via Libertarian Republican:

Ethnically European High school kids encouraged to wear special symbols of identification in public schools

From EAGNews.org, “Wis. education officials want students to wear ‘white privilege’ wristbands”:

an Americorps operation called VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) – may go a bit overboard by encouraging white students to wear a white wristband “as a reminder about your (white) privilege.”

Geared towards high school students, the program “seeks to build capacity in schools and districts serving low-income families to develop an effective, sustainable, research-based program of family-school-community partnerships,” according to its Facebook page. The webpage also offers a series of suggestions for high schools students to become more racially sensitive. They include:

✪ Wear a white wristband as a reminder about your privilege, and as a personal commitment to explain why you wear the wristband. 

Gateway Pundit points out some more craziness involved in this program:

The website also offers a series of suggestions for high schools students to become more racially sensitive including the suggestion that white students wear white wristbands to remind them of their white privilege.

Another CRAZY thing I noticed on the Wisconsin Department of Education where the program has its genesis, is this quote by Gloria Steinem:

Lets look at some other “insights” by Gloria:

…Well-known feminist author and co-founder/editor of Ms. magazine, Gloria Steinem, said the following about feminisms end game: “Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole #@*! patriarch!”

[….]

Alternatively, Gloria Steinem declared: “By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God.”

[….]

Marilyn French, feminist author calls all men rapists: “All men are rapists and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.” 

Let us allow Gloria Steinen, feminist extraordinaire, to set the stage with the following praises about her contemporary, Andrea Dworkin, “In every century, there are a handful of writers who help the human race to evolve. Andrea is one of them.” Why preface Andrea Dworkin?  Because she has this to say about men in general: “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.”

(source)

Which is why feminist Tammy Bruce says that what “Gloria Steinem, Molly Yard, Patricia Ireland and all the rest have presented to you over the last [30-years] years has not been feminist theory.” I might add that what they have offered is radicalism in freedoms clothing.

Some People Cannot Give An-Inch! Conversation About Racism and the Parties ~ Talking to a Partisan Wall

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Click graphic to hear our President)

On FaceBook, a gentleman named John mentioned that the KKK supports and mirrors the Republican party. I will here show here the plethora of evidence I brought to bear in private with him. Why make it public (while protecting his privacy)? Because he refuses to admit that this is a) new information that could add to his views, and b) even allowing for an iota of this new evidence into his thinking. Instead, he offers anecdotal responses that are sold on bumper stickers. I was thinking he was not a lemming and could think for himself.

Here is the first paragraph I came across by John:

… the CURRENT GOP is perhaps the most ungodly party in US history .. it shares the legacy of the KKK and the Birch society and calls for shifting wealth from everyone who works into the hands of a few oligarchs….NOW … is that the message we wish to hear from the pulpit? and do we want every Christian pastor to explain how voting for a Mormon is voting against the historical Jesus of the Bible? Me, i prefer not to have this from the pulpit. in fact, I wonder if that is the TRUTH the makers of this film wish pastors to speak out??

Here is my intro:

I would love to join the conversation by saying that there are a few topics already in this small paragraph. I would like to deal with a topic specifically… and, as we move along… keep to this one topic till we get some clarity or consensus on it. This may take a bit of time, but as these topics are important — I think it will be worth the hard work. With one-hour photo, half-hour pizza, Instagram, and email (vs snail mail), we can get use to not thinking or taking time to really delve into a subject.

The first subject may take some time to deal with, but i guarantee that if one sticks to the facts, that some ideas or understandings of these topics WILL change. Before I continue — and this is my busy season — I always wish to preface these talks with a “legal statement.” Before I paste it, I do wish to say one thing more.

I write and upload on these topics… so if a video is posted and recommended to be watched, I would rather a couple of weeks pass until one is able to work through it than not watch it (or read it).

Much Thought, SeanG:

“By-the-by, for those reading this I will explain what is missing in this type of discussion due to the media used. Genuflecting, care, concern, one being upset (does not entail being “mad”), etc… are all not viewable because we are missing each other’s tone, facial expressions, and the like. I afford the other person I am dialoguing with the best of intentions and read his/her comments as if we were out having a talk over a beer at a bar or meeting a friend at Starbucks. (I say this because there seems to be a phenomenon of etiquette thrown out when talking through email or Face Book, lots more public cussing and gratuitous responses.) You will see that often times I USE CAPS — which in www lingo for YELLING. I am not using it this way, I use it to merely emphasize and often times say as much: *not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*. So in all my discussions I afford the best of thought to the other person as I expect he or she would to me… even if dealing with tough subjects as the above. I have had more practice at this than most, and with half-hour pizza, one hour photo and email vs. ‘snail mail,’ know that important discussions take time to meditate on, inculcate, and to process. So be prepared for a good thought provoking discussion if you so choose one with me.”

[…]

Lets deal with the kkk claim first, yeah.

John reiterated his position:

ok .. no i am on this thread….note i said the GOP shares the legacy or ghe KKK and the Birchers…this would tie into the nation wide movement for voter suppression, the constant attacks on mr Obama ( including several that use the word nigger ) and the tendency to refer to Obama as ‘socialist’ or even communist.

Me:

John, here is a sentence for you, let me know if you agree with it. And if not, tell me how I am going wrong: “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.”

John:

Do you have a date for this statement… up until the 60s if would be mostly accurate…in fact you can see the shift of racist from the Dems to the GOP by looking at a election map of the old Confederate states…That shift took place about the time Strom Thurmond moved from the Dems to the GOP …along with other racists…

Me:

No, not really. Reagan and the Republican governors implemented the rest of the Civil Rights Act. And in 1972 Wallace was beating McGovern in primaries before he was shot. He was running on an openly racist platform (https://vimeo.com/album/203863/video/25238719). Even today,

That came from a book I just read by Bruce Bartlett entitled “Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past” (2009). I brought and read that book and the Rev. Wayne Perryman’s book on a recent Alaskan cruise. Rev. Perryman’s newest book is entitled, “Whites, Blacks and Racist Democrats” (2010). [I will post some books and media I have watched below for further referencing for you if you are interested in my reading on this topic.]

First however, I wish to post here what I did on my oldest sons FaceBook:

—————————————————————————-

I would also like to hear a definition of “racist” from people who say such things. “Racism” is a belief that one ethnic group is genetically superior to another. This was popular in the evolutionary field years ago because it was once taught that the races (Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid) evolved in separate times and geographical areas.

A literal understanding of the Bible does away with this type of thinking… but that is neither here-nor-there. I would actually like to know what it would take to get someone like myself to work hand-in-hand to remove, say, Bush (“W”) from office — vote him out when he was Pres.

Maybe if Bush went to a church for 20-years that sold white power books similar to Mein Kampf. A church where KKK members and White Power guys felt at home to visit and the pastor (with all this — books in the churches book store and members) was an “ex” Nazi skinhead. I would probably work hand-in-hand with fellow Democrats to remove him from office.

I mean the Rev. Wright is an ex Nation of Islam guy. His church had many visitors from the Black Panthers, the New Black Panthers, and Nation of Islam guys. Outright Racist literature was sold in his church and pushed by his pastor on Hannity & Colmes.

Why wouldn’t they then, work with me? Some quotes for the hard of hearing:

“The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew” ~ Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf

“The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.62 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

“White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.64 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

=======================

“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” ~ Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf

“There is no place in black theology for a colorless God in a society where human beings suffer precisely because of their color. The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.63 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

“Christianity is not alien to Black Power, Christianity is Black Power” ~ James Cone, Black Theology & Black Power, p.38 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

“In contrast to this racist view of God, black theology proclaims God’s blackness. Those who want to know who God is and what God is doing must know who black persons are and what they are doing” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.65 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

=======================

“The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!” ~ Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf

“These new theologians of the Third World argue that Christians [liberation theology accepting Christians] should not shun violence but should initiate it” ~ James Cone, Black Theology & Black Power, p.32 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

“It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and Black Power. Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it” ~ James Cone, Black Theology & Black Power, p.14 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

“It is this fact that makes all white churches anti-Christian in their essence. To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!” ~ James Cone, Black Theology & Black Power, p.151 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

“It [black liberation theology] is dangerous because the true prophet of the gospel of God must become both “anti-Christian” and “unpatriotic.”…. Because whiteness by its very nature is against blackness, the black prophet is a prophet of national doom. He proclaims the end of the American Way” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.55-56 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

Read more: https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/im-not-divisive-the-media-is-divisive-rev-wright-unleashed-again-or-black-racism-good-white-racism-bad/#ixzz26Oe4xzj8

[….]

Oh, I almost forgot! Current KKK’ers are also very supportive of the Democrats because many are very harsh on Israel, or outright anti-Semitic. A case in point, David Duke. David Duke endorsed Democrat Charles Barron because of their shared enmity toward “zionists.”

John responds:

need to get to work ..but … consider …1. David Duke didn’t win as a democrat…2. .Wallace.. check out the American Independent Party …( and also that he at the end of life renounced the racist actions ) 3.go aback to original post of min e. and the words CURRENT GOP….there was a great shift in the GOP since the neo-cons and tea-party ,in my opinion, stole the party from the real republicans in this century… so beware of historical items that do not address the current no longer truly Republican party.

Me:

(Like I said, you can take your time with responses, I work too, so no worries in feeling like an immediate response is warranted)

Wallace ran as an independent in 68. in 72 he was running as Democrat (and winning) as an open racist. Reagan in the early 80’s along with his Republican governors working with him, solidified the Civil Rights Act. David Duke CURRENTLY endorses Democrats, as an example.

Do you have a person you can name that is a racist, currently? Obama went to a church that for 20-years sold books in its church book store that mirror Mein Kampf… is that an example I supported by references and quotes? Yes. Can you give me a similar example, or a name of a racist in the Republican Party? Please, I am asking seriously, this issue is close to my heart as my Grandmother is a black woman and I came from Detroit where ALL my friends were black. I know racism and prejudice, as I was a minority and in fights weekly because I was white.

[…]

You mentioned Strom Thurman… and that many others switched… a quote is coming, but here is some names in concrete for you and not merely non-resources “sayings” you have heard from others:

Please, give a source from a Republican calling Obama a nigger? Was it close to this: “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” ~ LBJ (How? The New Deal)

Besides Robert Byrd, who was a recruiter for the KKK as well as an Exalted Cyclops (“top dog” in his local chapter), there is also this interesting cadre of RECENT names in the Democrat Party:

[What is so galling about these episodes to Republicans is the double standard: blatant racism in the Democratic Party usually passes without notice or denunciation from Democratic leaders or the civil rights establishment. Previous chapters have noted the racist records of highly respected Democrats such as Senators Richard B. Russell of Georgia and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, who rose to the highest levels of power in the Democratic Party despite their well-known and often demonstrated hostility to civil rights. Byrd, for example, was elected Senate Democratic Whip in 1971 and Majority Leader in 1977 even though he was known to have once been a member of the Ku Klux Klan and had personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Down to the present day, cases of overt racists holding high-level positions in the Democratic leadership are not uncommon—Byrd still serves in the Senate, where he chairs the powerful Committee on Appropriations. And as recently as 2001, he was still making racist remarks, referring to “white niggers” on national television. Following are a few other contemporary cases that people may have forgotten.]

Senator Herman Talmadge, Democrat of Georgia (1956-1980)
The son of infamous racist Eugene Talmadge… was a chip off the old block. Having replaced his father as governor of Georgia in 1946, he publicly attended Ku Klux Klan Id events in his official capacity. In 1955, Talmadge published an entire book devoted to attacking the civil rights movement and defending segregation. He was especially concerned about the degrading effects of intermarriage. Said Talmadge, “history shows that nations composed of a mongrel race lose their strength and become weak, lazy and indifferent.”E Nevertheless, he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1956, where, despite his racist past, he rose to the chairmanship of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Senator John Stennis, Democrat of Mississippi (1947-1988)
Elected to succeed the notorious Theodore Bilbo… Stennis shared his predecessor’s opposition to integration. In a 1955 interview, Stennis asserted that contrary to popular belief, blacks really wanted separate schools. Moreover, he argued that allowing black and white children to attend the same schools would “eventually destroy each race.” Stennis said it was better to abolish public education altogether than permit integration. Nevertheless, he was among the most respected members of the Senate until his retirement, chairing the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees for many years. Stennis was honored by his fellow Democrats by being elected President pro tempore of the Senate during the One Hundredth Congress.

Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina (1966-2004)
Elected governor of South Carolina in 1958, Hollings was a staunch opponent of integration. Among his actions was signing into law a bill that added the Confederate symbol to the state’s flag. After his election to the Senate in 1966, Hollings continued his intolerant ways. In 1981, he referred to fellow Democratic Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio as “the Senator from B’nai B’rith” for his opposition to school prayer. In 1983, Hollings was forced to apologize for calling supporters of fellow Democratic Senator Alan Cranston of California “wetbacks.” In 1986, Hollings used the word “darkies” to describe minimum wage workers in South Carolina. And in 1993, he said that it was good for African leaders to attend international conferences because they would get a good meal instead of having to eat each other. 11.4 Yet despite these and other racially offensive comments, Hollings served without reprimand and chaired the Senate Budget Committee and the Committee on Commerce.

Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut (1980- )
On April 1, 2004, Senator Robert C. Byrd cast his 17,000th vote in the Senate. Many senators rose to congratulate their colleague, but the most effusive was Dodd. As he said that day, “I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation. Considering Byrd’s well-known and admitted past membership in the Ku Klux Klan, Dodd’s words could have been construed as endorsing that nefarious group and he quickly apologized. This incident would not be worth mentioning except that the words spoken by Trent about Strom Thurmond in 2002 were very similar and spoken in the same context of honoring a longtime colleague. But while there was a firestorm of controversy about Lott’s comments and he lost his leadership position, Dodd was not punished in any way and the story instantly vanished.

Senator James Webb, Democrat of Virginia (2006— )
During Webb’s campaign to unseat Republican Senator George Allen in 2006, the liberal New Republic magazine dogged Allen for his alleged pro-Confederacy views. These charges were picked up in the major media and contributed heavily to Allen’s defeat by Webb. However, there is no media record of the fact that Webb himself held views even more sympathetic to the Confederacy than Allen’s. On June 3, 1990, Webb spoke at the Confederate Memorial at Arlington Cemetery and talked extensively about the “gallantry” of the Confederate soldiers that is “still misunderstood by most Americans.” He even voiced sympathy for the idea of state sovereignty and the right to secede from the Union. Yet although it is far more supportive of the Confederacy than anything Allen ever said and was easily available on Web’s personal web site, no mention of this speech ever appeared in the New Republic, Washington Post, or other major media outlet.

Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), 182-185.

Mmmm, and Nixon fighting (most Republicans) for the Civil Rights Act, and most Democrats fighting it (including JFK).

[….]

What I Have Shown?

• From segregation to separation over race (wanting to create a new — racist — country), from Dred Scott to Bull Connor, to drinking fountains to fighting for the Civil Rights Act wanting to be passed by Republicans since the 1870’s, Democrats were on the wrong side of history. All of it. From Jackson onward.
• The Democrat Party never rejected nor disciplined there members for racist activity, even up until current times. Trent Lott lost all positions or importance and was drummed out by fellow Republicans after praising Strom Thurmond, Chris Dodd in a similar situation was ignored. (Like Democrats getting committee leadership positions and three standing ovations in Congress after sleeping with an underage page… but Republicans drumming out any fellow persons who are similarly caught in these situations.)
• There are examples (as already posted) of Democrats until recently (even a few years ago the word “niggar” used by Robert Byrd and In 1986 Hollings used the word “darkies” to describe minimum wage workers in South Carolina) racial language used by Democrats, in Congress.
• The keynote speaker at the DNC this year is a member of “La Raza” (see: http://tinyurl.com/99ua58z) and has ties to MECHa (so, white power and the KKK respectively… just Hispanic versions).
• I showed Obama’s racist connections to a ethos that teaches racism (the genetic superiority of one ethnicity as well as God blessed, racism), that is a Republican had attended a similar church for 20-years, calling this pastor his mentor, a sort-of-father figure, and putting him in charge of part of his campaign (until under the bus he went), the cultural left would be going ape-shit!
• I showed that the KKK like Democrats because many are anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian… David Duke even coming out and endorsing a Democrat… and they gravitate towards Ron Paul, who sends voters to go vote for a Democrat ex-Rep. who is part of the Black Panthers (a racist organization, as well as supporting The Nation of Islam) and committed Marxist.

How is this different from you? You seem to make grand, unfounded anecdotal claims based in hearsay. “Colloquial” sayings in generalized swaths with no connection to reality, history, or the like. You, like many today on the left, do not know how to define racism (a genetic superiority) or show that Republican leaders — not some group — are prejudiced (like I have shown in Democratic terms, to be RACIST and PREJUDICED). Like the left labeling its opposition with SIXHERB (explained here: http://tinyurl.com/9o6486c), outside of political expediency, there is no truth to this labeling or connection with the KKK, racism, or historical position of the Democrats like Dred Scott or the silly connection to asking for I.D. to vote. The same question asked to get into the DNC this year… I.D.

So, I am curious what your position is on the Republicans and the KKK are. This one topic.

John repeatedly told me that I have proven nothing, and he again mentioned the John Birch Society. Funny, because the john birch society has included Alan Keyes (a black man) as a speaker and Ezola Foster was an integral part of the organization. The conversation ended with this:

John:

you have shown almost nothing about the last 15 to 20 years….

I hate to point the obvious out… but I did deal with the past 15-years. Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina (1966-2004), Senator James Webb, Democrat of Virginia (2006— ), Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut (1980- ). The endorsement of a leader in the KKK was 2012. So his point is proven wrong, and I think he may have ignored them because it showed his thinking was bad. Obama went to an overtly racist church recently, and the DNC had as its keynote speaker a racist. So my examples spread from the past till current times.

As well as recent racial comments by Democrats, like, Bill Clinton (“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,”), Joseph Biden (“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”), and Dan Rather (“but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.”):

Deck O’ Race Cards: PJTV and Dennis Prager

Published by Papa Giorgio

HARRY REID AND THE END OF THE LIBERAL MIND — Dennis Prager

The highest-ranking Democrat in America, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, described the Senate bill making English the national language of the American people as “racist.” And the New York Times editorial page labeled the bill “xenophobic.”

Welcome to the thoughtless world of contemporary liberalism. Beginning in the 1960s, liberalism, once the home of many deep thinkers, began to substitute feeling for thought and descended into superficiality.

One-word put-downs of opponents’ ideas and motives were substituted for thoughtful rebuttal. Though liberals regard themselves as intellectual — their views, after all, are those of nearly all university professors — liberal thought has almost died. Instead of feeling the need to thoughtfully consider an idea, most liberal minds today work on automatic. One-word reactions to most issues are the liberal norm.

This is easy to demonstrate….

….Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:The "Sweep Under the Rug" Argument

  • Racist
  • Sexist
  • Homophobic
  • Islamophobic
  • Imperialist
  • Bigoted
  • Intolerant

And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:

  • Peace
  • Fairness
  • Tolerance
  • The poor
  • The disenfranchised
  • The environment

These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.

First, they attack the motives of non-liberals and thereby morally dismiss the non-liberal person.

Second, these words make it easy to be a liberal — essentially all one needs to do is to memorize this brief list and apply the right term to any idea or policy. That is one reason young people are more likely to be liberal — they have not had the time or inclination to think issues through, but they know they oppose racism, imperialism and bigotry, and that they are for peace, tolerance and the environment.

Third, they make the liberal feel good about himself — by opposing conservative ideas and policies, he is automatically opposing racism, bigotry, imperialism, etc.

Examples could fill a book.

Harry Reid, as noted above, supplied a classic one. Instead of grappling with the enormously significant question of how to maintain American identity and values with tens of millions of non-Americans coming into America, the Democratic leader and others on the Left simply label attempts to keep English as a unifying language as “racist.”

Another classic example of liberal non-thought was the reaction to former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers’ mere question about whether the female and male brains were wired differently. Again, instead of grappling with the issue, Harvard and other liberals merely dismissed Summers as “sexist.”

A third example is the use of the term “racist” to end debate about race-based affirmative action or even to describe a Capitol police officer who stops a black congresswoman who has no ID badge.

“Phobic” is the current one-word favorite among liberal dismissals of ideological opponents. It combines instant moral dismissal with instant psychological analysis. If you do not support society redefining marriage to include members of the same sex you are “homophobic” — and further thought is unnecessary. If you articulate a concern about the moral state of Islam today, you are “Islamophobic” — and again further thought is unnecessary. And if you seek to retain English as America’s unifying language, you are not only racist, you are, as the New York Times editorial describes you, “xenophobic” and “Latinophobic,” the latest phobia uncovered by the Left.

There is a steep price paid for the liberal one-wording of complex ideas — the decline of liberal thought. But with more and more Americans graduating college and therefore taught the liberal list of one-word reactions instead of critical thinking, many liberals do not see any pressing need to think through issues. They therefore do not believe they have paid any price at all.

But American society is paying a steep price. Every car that has a bumper sticker declaring “War is not the answer” powerfully testifies to the intellectual decline of the well educated and to the devolution of “liberal thought” into an oxymoron.

Liberal Professor Says Insulating Liberal

Students To Opposing Views Hurts Them

A liberal professor interviewed in INDOCTRINATE U explains that insulating students by teaching from one ideological viewpoint harms students who are liberal and retards their ability to properly defend and coherently explain their views in the real world — i.e., outside the classroom. This excerpt is taken from two parts… Part 1 is HERE, and Part 2 is HERE.

How the Left Views the Right: