View Full Version : Slippery slope @ Columbia
Ah, the progressive lib defense......why not, both consenting adults, with a redef of marriage etc, etc,...and a Columbia Professor no less...another stellar educator, wonder what his attitude is in the classroom....
The lawyer representing a professor charged with incest with his 24-year-old daughter has questioned why the alleged affair has been made public.
David Epstein was charged last week with one count of incest for what was allegedly a consensual three-year sexual relationship with his daughter.
The political science professor at Columbia University, 46, allegedly slept with her between 2006 and 2009.
Epstein, who specialises in American politics and voting rights, is also said to have exchanged twisted text messages with the woman during their relationship.
Matthew Galluzzo, defending Epstein, has said that even though his daughter had emerged as a victim in the case, she could ‘best be described as an accomplice’.
He told ABCNews.com: ‘Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so.
‘At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms.
‘It’s ok for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different?
‘We have to figure out why some behaviour is tolerated and some is not
The line in the sand keeps getting drawn closer and closer........................
Just got this response from a liberal nutcase that I know...
"What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is not your business or mine. No slippery slope to that.
I don't care if they are father/daughter, they can have sex. They can not have a child, because we believe that in-breeding causes birth defects and the child didn't ask to be born. That involves a third party. But just between them. It's no one's business but their own."
This is the primary argument for defining marriage in its age old traditional form...once it becomes "whatever' you get 'whatever'
The Reaper
04-05-2013, 17:58
Just got this response from a liberal nutcase that I know...
"What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is not your business or mine. No slippery slope to that.
I don't care if they are father/daughter, they can have sex. They can not have a child, because we believe that in-breeding causes birth defects and the child didn't ask to be born. That involves a third party. But just between them. It's no one's business but their own."
This is the primary argument for defining marriage in its age old traditional form...once it becomes "whatever' you get 'whatever'
Ahhh.
Must be a NAMBLA supporter as well.
TR
Ahhh.
Must be a NAMBLA supporter as well.
TR
No, he is not. He is a lib progressive and his position is if you are of legal age whatever you do behind closed doors is your business....incest included.
Trapper John
04-05-2013, 18:59
Just got this response from a liberal nutcase that I know...
"What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is not your business or mine. No slippery slope to that.
I don't care if they are father/daughter, they can have sex. They can not have a child, because we believe that in-breeding causes birth defects and the child didn't ask to be born. That involves a third party. But just between them. It's no one's business but their own."
This is the primary argument for defining marriage in its age old traditional form...once it becomes "whatever' you get 'whatever'
Damn! I tried to follow this logic train and I met myself coming around the bend :eek: That sort of thinking just validates A. MacLeish's (a liberal thinker BTW) warning in "Man's Revolt Against Himself".
I'm guessing your friend would argue "If it's OK with Woody Allen, then why not?"
We're doomed, Brother if these chuckleheads continue to procreate. I thought that level of stupid would naturally be self-annihalting.
Shit, I'm starting to rant. It's Friday night and I'm gonna have a drink - maybe several;)
The last sentence was mine about trad marriage, just noticed that....maybe that thru you off.
True tho that the lib progressive attitude is unreal....my 'gut' tells me that Daddy screwing his daughter is a bad thing, regardless of reaching the age of maturity....maybe that's it, libs have no guts.
The political science professor at Columbia University, 46, allegedly slept with her between 2006 and 2009.
Um, I'm willing to bet they weren't asleep. At least not all night.
And ... THIWWP.
And ... THIWWP.
If you've seen dad, you might not want to see daughter. ;)
Pat
Looking into this story I found it seems to have originated around May 25, 2011 after Epstein copped a plea in New York Criminal Court that reduced the initial Felony 3rd Degree Incest charge to a mere Misdemeanor.
So he copped more then a feel for 3 years with his daughter, then copped a plea deal and like Ms. Boudin, Mr. Epstein is still gainfully employed by Columbia.
In comparison Jerry Sandusky is doing time, Rutgers gave Mike Rice the boot because of a violent outburst.
Mr. Epstein Wiki's Articles of Deletion is an interesting read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_L._Epstein
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive119
We should not be hosting this biography. There isn't enough independent, reliably sourced material to do anything much besides recapitulate his c.v. And pretty much all of the newspaper coverage - much of it sensationalistic - relates to his recent family and legal difficulties. That combination augurs very poorly for our ability to write a neutral, encyclopedic biography in this instance. It seems to me that deletion is the best approach in terms of harm reduction, and we're not really losing much encyclopedic information anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNotice board%2FArchive119#David_L._Epstein
Moral relativism in full bloom......incest is no different that gay sex, kinda sorta, you get it don't you.
If sexual proclivity is predestined...you are 'born that way'...then pedophilia is just another normal human expression, kinda sorta, you get it don't you.
It is all the same.
GratefulCitizen
04-06-2013, 11:18
Given over to a reprobate mind.
When people want a Godless existence badly enough, they get it.
Romans 1:28-32
Trapper John
04-06-2013, 11:35
Moral relativism in full bloom......incest is no different that gay sex, kinda sorta, you get it don't you.
If sexual proclivity is predestined...you are 'born that way'...then pedophilia is just another normal human expression, kinda sorta, you get it don't you.
It is all the same.
And down the rabbit hole we go! :eek: This trend of moral relativism reminds me of why I left the Unitarian Church.
Some personal background: I was raised Episcopalian and as most of you probably have deduced by now, I have developed a personal philosophy that is highly influenced by Ayn Rand and can best be characterized as a conservative libertarian philosophy.
So back to my point: As some of you may know, Unitarian services are lay led, not unlike the Quakers in that respect. Well, after years of hearing the virtues of Tolerance, I led a service pointing out the importance of personal responsibility and critical thinking in a philosophy that emphasizes personal liberty and the right of self-determination. I pointed out that being ethical is very different from being moral. Situational ethics applies, situational morality is an oxymoron. In that vein, I promoted the virtue of Intolerance and the ability to discriminate between what is right and what is wrong irrespective of the situation.
Well, you would have thought that I just pissed in everyone's Cornflakes :D
I don't think they missed me when I never went back:p
Given over to a reprobate mind.
When people want a Godless existence badly enough, they get it.
Romans 1:28-32
Ain't it the truth. :mad:
MTN Medic
04-06-2013, 13:23
No, he is not. He is a lib progressive and his position is if you are of legal age whatever you do behind closed doors is your business....incest included.
I don't understand how people who claim to be libertarians cannot feel the same way. If I want to have upside down sex with my sister using ice cubes, whistles and glitter paint, it should be OK; as long as we are both consenting adults.
Now, if you don't subscribe to the libertarian ethic, other points can be made; especially when one brings religion into the fold (which I feel has no place in government).
MTN Medic
04-06-2013, 13:29
Moral relativism in full bloom......incest is no different that gay sex, kinda sorta, you get it don't you.
If sexual proclivity is predestined...you are 'born that way'...then pedophilia is just another normal human expression, kinda sorta, you get it don't you.
It is all the same.
I subscribe to the Oliver Wendel Holmes style ethic where "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose." Pedophilia does not really encompass this in that it directly affects a non-consenting minor and is therefore encroaching upon said minor's ability to live life unmolested. Morality IS relative. Go to Acholi land, tribal areas in Pakistan and rural China and tell me that morality is not relative. Morality is based on norms and memes and these differ from culture to culture and even family to family.
I may not personally agree with these adults' choices in recreational activities but they are affecting nobody but themselves and thus, I am fine with it.
I may not personally agree with these adults' choices in recreational activities but they are affecting nobody but themselves and thus, I am fine with it.
So, incest is OK with you?
This appears to have been a situation concluded a few years back.
There are plenty of odd ffolkes out there in America, and IMO this case highlights two of them.
I could not find any information on whether or not his daughter was also charged as the sex seems to have been consensual and she was an adult at the time, too.
I could not locate Professor Epstein among the current faculty listing at Columbia, although his apparently ex-wife is still there, and assume his contract was terminated at some point.
Richard
Trapper John
04-06-2013, 14:44
I subscribe to the Oliver Wendel Holmes style ethic where "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose." Pedophilia does not really encompass this in that it directly affects a non-consenting minor and is therefore encroaching upon said minor's ability to live life unmolested. Morality IS relative. Go to Acholi land, tribal areas in Pakistan and rural China and tell me that morality is not relative. Morality is based on norms and memes and these differ from culture to culture and even family to family.
I may not personally agree with these adults' choices in recreational activities but they are affecting nobody but themselves and thus, I am fine with it.
In principle I agree with you. However, the morality we are discussing here is within our culture. As predominantly a Judea-Christian culture we, as a society, abide by Judea-Christian defined morality. If a family within our culture, decides that incest is OK with them, they certainly have the right to make that decision. However, there is a consequence to that decision that they must be willing to accept as well.
I fail to see how morality can be relative within a culture. If that were the case then the society would be amoral. I agree that morality can be relative between cultures. As SF soldiers we certainly could not survive very long if we failed to recognize that and carried around judgments about other cultures.;)
So, incest is OK with you?
It's only a matter of time before people will be legally marrying their pets and livestock.
The Trojan Couch....
It's only a matter of time before people will be legally marrying their pets and livestock.
The Trojan Couch....
And the female livestock will insist on an individual identity by hyphenating their names, a la "May I present Mr. Jones and Mrs. Jones-Holstein...
MTN Medic
04-06-2013, 15:18
So, incest is OK with you?
Between consenting adults? Yes.
ZonieDiver
04-06-2013, 15:21
Rutgers gave Mike Rice the boot because of a violent outburst.
While this incestuous case is very wrong, let's be correct in our statements.
Mike Rice was fired from his coaching position at Rutgers for more than "a violent outburst"! It if was "A" violent outburst, it was one that lasted a lonnnnng time.
MTN Medic
04-06-2013, 15:25
In principle I agree with you. However, the morality we are discussing here is within our culture. As predominantly a Judea-Christian culture we, as a society, abide by Judea-Christian defined morality. If a family within our culture, decides that incest is OK with them, they certainly have the right to make that decision. However, there is a consequence to that decision that they must be willing to accept as well.
I fail to see how morality can be relative within a culture. If that were the case then the society would be amoral. I agree that morality can be relative between cultures. As SF soldiers we certainly could not survive very long if we failed to recognize that and carried around judgments about other cultures.;)
This country was founded on freedom of religion and the implication of that is that if I don't want to subscribe to the religion of the majority, I don't have to. It sucks when people don't live the way you do sometimes, but just think if the tables were turned and you lived in the United States of Homoerotica and you weren't allowed to have sex with a woman. Would that suck? Yeop.
If we subjugate others because they don't follow our religious ideals, we are taking a huge flaming shit on what this Nation was created as; a free nation. For a modern example, try living as a Christian in a muslim nation. I don't want that. I don't want that a hell of a lot more than I don't want some people doing kinky shit in their bedrooms...
This country was founded on freedom of religion and the implication of that is that if I don't want to subscribe to the religion of the majority, I don't have to. It sucks when people don't live the way you do sometimes, but just think if the tables were turned and you lived in the United States of Homoerotica and you weren't allowed to have sex with a woman. Would that suck? Yeop.
If we subjugate others because they don't follow our religious ideals, we are taking a huge flaming shit on what this Nation was created as; a free nation. For a modern example, try living as a Christian in a muslim nation. I don't want that. I don't want that a hell of a lot more than I don't want some people doing kinky shit in their bedrooms...
I see your point to a certain extent, but I'm curious as to which religions find incest acceptable in this Country, and how does a person delineate between right and wrong without cut-and-dried rules?
Murder is as wrong as a dad screwing his daughter. Are you saying murder between two consenting adults should be OK? How do you differentiate which laws should be dissolved and which kept intact?
It's in the same class of wrong as is homosexual marriage, IMO.
Trapper John
04-06-2013, 16:40
This country was founded on freedom of religion and the implication of that is that if I don't want to subscribe to the religion of the majority, I don't have to. It sucks when people don't live the way you do sometimes, but just think if the tables were turned and you lived in the United States of Homoerotica and you weren't allowed to have sex with a woman. Would that suck? Yeop.
If we subjugate others because they don't follow our religious ideals, we are taking a huge flaming shit on what this Nation was created as; a free nation. For a modern example, try living as a Christian in a muslim nation. I don't want that. I don't want that a hell of a lot more than I don't want some people doing kinky shit in their bedrooms...
This is a really good discussion! At the risk of creating a cross-thread point, I stated in the "Planned Parenthood Official...." thread that we should not attempt to legislate morality and a couple of the Brothers called me out on that statement. I mention this here because I think the point you are making and what I meant by that statement are the same thing, although I did not state what I meant very well.
Morality in a society is defined by its dominant theology. Now, we are also a society that believes in the secular Rule of Law and those secular laws stem, at least in part, from the theology (as Dusty so succinctly said "when Moses humped those two rocks down the mountain"). Throw in the belief in the sanctity of the individual and we begin to take a ride down the rabbit hole to a place where things are not so clear cut.
To illustrate my point, MR2 commented that murder was immoral (sorry MR2 if I am taking license here, but I really am trying to make a point). Ostensibly this stems from the commandment "Thou shall not kill". Well, that cannot be strictly adhered to - is killing in self-defense, defense of others, war, etc, immoral? So, we made a special case - murder is immoral and therefore, there are instances where killing is not immoral, but actually can be a moral act.
We now have transgressed into the realm of ethics. It can be ethical to kill but still immoral in the strict theological sense, i.e. situational ethics and not situational morality.
So that the MODs don't flogg me for this cross-thread point, I will now attempt to bring this back to topic:p
Our system of governance attempts (brilliantly so IMO) to modulate the obvious tyranny that evolves from a strict interpretation of moral law and balance the sanctity of individual liberty with the need for a moral compass in a civilized society. At this juncture in our secular law incest is illegal. As we make each exception to moral law (as our Judea Christian society defines it) it becomes easier to rationalize the next exception. Extending that line of thinking, we really go down the rabbit hole and nothing has any meaning because everything is relative. No society can remain in any organized or recognizable form in that case and that is the Achilles heal of a libertarian philosophy.
Badger52
04-06-2013, 16:43
And the female livestock will insist on an individual identity by hyphenating their names, a la "May I present Mr. Jones and Mrs. Jones-Holstein...Keeping all those divorce lawyers on retainer could bankrupt PETA.
GreatfulService
04-06-2013, 17:09
If you believe death leads to immediate rebirth as some starving soon to be infested with worms, starved, infected, abused, kidnapped and forced into soldiery or slavery....
I think you can see where i'm going with this, out of the billions of idiots on this cosmic piece of dust we Nacirema are on the "Lucky" end of the Shit-Sandwich------Mid 50------Industrialized Nations
scale of average quality of life in a region.
So from my perspective I could care less about this sick weirdo and his equally twisted daughter EXCEPT for the following - doesn't this set a dangerous precident for the sick bastard who molests his own kids... "well i can't wait till Suzie turns 18, it means i can finally kiss her on the mouth when we go out for a date!"
I mean really guys, isn't that the scarier bit of this weird slippery slope? $5 says 21 wasn't the first time this asshole dipped his wick in his own daughter. Sick fuck.
"Thou shall not kill".
The correct translation is, ”Thou shalt not do murder”. A tiny bit different. ;)
Pat
Oldrotorhead
04-06-2013, 17:23
I'm pretty much with Dusty. I have a few questions.
Accidents happen.
1.Who pays for the two headed child if there are birth defects?
2, Do consents adults have to consider damage to third parties? Mommy/wife/ex-wife.
My opinion is if you do something only you and your partner are responsable for the outcome and cost of the outcome. Since in the US today other people are partially responsable for the cost of bad behavior then they have a vote in the activity too.
1.Who pays for the two headed child if there are birth defects?
Let them pay for themselves; bring back Freak Shows! ;)
Pat
Undocumented Common-Law Sex-Ed Mentoring - I'm sure it's tucked away in the sequestering bill somewhere. :rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
MTN Medic
04-07-2013, 06:47
I'm pretty much with Dusty. I have a few questions.
Accidents happen.
1.Who pays for the two headed child if there are birth defects?
2, Do consents adults have to consider damage to third parties? Mommy/wife/ex-wife.
My opinion is if you do something only you and your partner are responsable for the outcome and cost of the outcome. Since in the US today other people are partially responsable for the cost of bad behavior then they have a vote in the activity too.
Well, therein lies the rub. We, as a Nation have gone so far towards making everyone equal that the original concept of the formation of our Nation is impossible to implement at this juncture. With Obama care, I don't want people to smoke or drink as it will mean I have to pay more. What would be a whole lot better is for people to be responsible for themselves and to take care of themselves and their friends and family.
People are CREATED equal. This does not mean that they are equal when they are adults. I have generally kicked ass with my life and have plenty of money saved up at a young age, take pride in my education and continue it at every juncture and nurture an excellent relationship with my family all while being in really damn good shape. Problem is, BECAUSE I rock, I have to suffer because people want to force me to subsidize others' general lack of kickassitivity.
I am not naive in that I think that my ideals (the Nation's ideals really) could be implemented today. I do think it is what we have to strive for and therefore, many of the transformations we have seen in the last 3 decades need to be repealed. I long await the age of personal responsibility where being kick-ass is rewarded with financial security and happiness and my burden for being non-kickass is mine and mine alone.
Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged really.
Along the same lines as this discussion:
24917
Trapper John
04-07-2013, 09:50
Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged really.
As I have said before, there are many John Galts here and this is Galt's Gultch.;)
Hang in there Brother. :lifter
GratefulCitizen
04-07-2013, 10:37
This is a really good discussion! At the risk of creating a cross-thread point, I stated in the "Planned Parenthood Official...." thread that we should not attempt to legislate morality and a couple of the Brothers called me out on that statement. I mention this here because I think the point you are making and what I meant by that statement are the same thing, although I did not state what I meant very well.
Morality in a society is defined by its dominant theology. Now, we are also a society that believes in the secular Rule of Law and those secular laws stem, at least in part, from the theology (as Dusty so succinctly said "when Moses humped those two rocks down the mountain"). Throw in the belief in the sanctity of the individual and we begin to take a ride down the rabbit hole to a place where things are not so clear cut.
To illustrate my point, MR2 commented that murder was immoral (sorry MR2 if I am taking license here, but I really am trying to make a point). Ostensibly this stems from the commandment "Thou shall not kill". Well, that cannot be strictly adhered to - is killing in self-defense, defense of others, war, etc, immoral? So, we made a special case - murder is immoral and therefore, there are instances where killing is not immoral, but actually can be a moral act.
We now have transgressed into the realm of ethics. It can be ethical to kill but still immoral in the strict theological sense, i.e. situational ethics and not situational morality.
So that the MODs don't flogg me for this cross-thread point, I will now attempt to bring this back to topic:p
Our system of governance attempts (brilliantly so IMO) to modulate the obvious tyranny that evolves from a strict interpretation of moral law and balance the sanctity of individual liberty with the need for a moral compass in a civilized society. At this juncture in our secular law incest is illegal. As we make each exception to moral law (as our Judea Christian society defines it) it becomes easier to rationalize the next exception. Extending that line of thinking, we really go down the rabbit hole and nothing has any meaning because everything is relative. No society can remain in any organized or recognizable form in that case and that is the Achilles heal of a libertarian philosophy.
Societies are held together by common values which are enforced by the threat of being ostracized.
Empires, from warlords to world-spanning, are held together by the threat of force (government).
A society holds people out if they dont adhere to a certain standard (~religion).
An empire holds people in with force and places them within a hierarchy (natural trend of all government).
The Navajo are an excellent example of a people held together by common values rather than government.
Their traditions (~laws) are no less carefully designed than our own Constitution.
In their case, incest laws were designed to prevent a "ruling class" and the tyranny which follows.
MTN Medic
04-07-2013, 12:16
Societies are held together by common values which are enforced by the threat of being ostracized.
Empires, from warlords to world-spanning, are held together by the threat of force (government).
A society holds people out if they dont adhere to a certain standard (~religion).
An empire holds people in with force and places them within a hierarchy (natural trend of all government).
The Navajo are an excellent example of a people held together by common values rather than government.
Their traditions (~laws) are no less carefully designed than our own Constitution.
In their case, incest laws were designed to prevent a "ruling class" and the tyranny which follows.
Common values don't have to be a religion. The common values in this nation were supposed to be freedom but we are letting that one get away from us I fear.
GratefulCitizen
04-07-2013, 13:02
Common values don't have to be a religion. The common values in this nation were supposed to be freedom but we are letting that one get away from us I fear.
Agreed, that's why I put "~" in front of "religion".
However, freedom only works when the people restrain themselves.
Freedom without self-restraint is anarchy.
Agreed, that's why I put "~" in front of "religion".
However, freedom only works when the people restrain themselves.
Freedom without self-restraint is anarchy.
The founders often commented (Fed papers etc) that a free society would only work with self restraint...the Judeo/Christian morality was the construct they embraced as it was a constant among that group and in the Colonies.
Constant redefinition of wrong/right...what is good/bad...moral relativism on each and any belief system will destroy a self restrained free society.
A free society may not have the wherewithal to adjust or to compensate for that downward spiral.
Within self restraint and freedom of expression there is a happy medium. The self restraint creates that happy medium, without it......
MTN Medic
04-07-2013, 13:49
The founders often commented (Fed papers etc) that a free society would only work with self restraint...the Judeo/Christian morality was the construct they embraced as it was a constant among that group and in the Colonies.
Constant redefinition of wrong/right...what is good/bad...moral relativism on each and any belief system will destroy a self restrained free society.
A free society may not have the wherewithal to adjust or to compensate for that downward spiral.
Within self restraint and freedom of expression there is a happy medium. The self restraint creates that happy medium, without it......
I don't really subscribe to the Judeo-Christian foundation of our country. The founding fathers mentioned God and some of the principles they utilized are found in the Bible (as they are also found in the Koran) but really, most of the documentation is relatively devoid of religion.
I don't really subscribe to the Judeo-Christian foundation of our country. The founding fathers mentioned God and some of the principles they utilized are found in the Bible (as they are also found in the Koran) but really, most of the documentation is relatively devoid of religion.
Maybe the docs, but not the Founders' hearts, which inspired the docs.
A Few Declarations of Founding Fathers and Early Statesmen on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible
(This list is by no means exhaustive; many other Founders could be included, and even with those who appear below, additional quotes could have been used.)
John Adams
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1
The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation.2
Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.3
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.4
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!5
I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.6
John Quincy Adams
SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION”
My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.7
The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” [Isaiah 52:10].8
In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.9
Samuel Adams
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; “FATHER OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION”; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS
I . . . [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.10
The name of the Lord (says the Scripture) is a strong tower; thither the righteous flee and are safe [Proverbs 18:10]. Let us secure His favor and He will lead us through the journey of this life and at length receive us to a better.11
I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world . . . that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace.12
He also called on the State of Massachusetts to pray that . . .
the peaceful and glorious reign of our Divine Redeemer may be known and enjoyed throughout the whole family of mankind.13
we may with one heart and voice humbly implore His gracious and free pardon through Jesus Christ, supplicating His Divine aid . . . [and] above all to cause the religion of Jesus Christ, in its true spirit, to spread far and wide till the whole earth shall be filled with His glory.14
with true contrition of heart to confess their sins to God and implore forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ our Savior.15
Josiah Bartlett
MILITARY OFFICER; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Called on the people of New Hampshire . . . to confess before God their aggravated transgressions and to implore His pardon and forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ . . . [t]hat the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ may be made known to all nations, pure and undefiled religion universally prevail, and the earth be fill with the glory of the Lord.16
Gunning Bedford
MILITARY OFFICER; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; FEDERAL JUDGE
To the triune God – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost – be ascribed all honor and dominion, forevermore – Amen.17
Elias Boudinot
PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; SIGNED THE PEACE TREATY TO END THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; FIRST ATTORNEY ADMITTED TO THE U. S. SUPREME COURT BAR; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; DIRECTOR OF THE U. S. MINT
Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned… [L]et us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ’s sake, to preside in our councils. . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer.18
A letter to his daughter:
You have been instructed from your childhood in the knowledge of your lost state by nature – the absolute necessity of a change of heart and an entire renovation of soul to the image of Jesus Christ – of salvation through His meritorious righteousness only – and the indispensable necessity of personal holiness without which no man shall see the Lord [Hebrews 12:14]. You are well acquainted that the most perfect and consummate doctrinal knowledge is of no avail without it operates on and sincerely affects the heart, changes the practice, and totally influences the will – and that without the almighty power of the Spirit of God enlightening your mind, subduing your will, and continually drawing you to Himself, you can do nothing. . . . And may the God of your parents (for many generations past) seal instruction to your soul and lead you to Himself through the blood of His too greatly despised Son, Who notwithstanding, is still reclaiming the world to God through that blood, not imputing to them their sins. To Him be glory forever!19
For nearly half a century have I anxiously and critically studied that invaluable treasure [the Bible]; and I still scarcely ever take it up that I do not find something new – that I do not receive some valuable addition to my stock of knowledge or perceive some instructive fact never observed before. In short, were you to ask me to recommend the most valuable book in the world, I should fix on the Bible as the most instructive both to the wise and ignorant. Were you to ask me for one affording the most rational and pleasing entertainment to the inquiring mind, I should repeat, it is the Bible; and should you renew the inquiry for the best philosophy or the most interesting history, I should still urge you to look into your Bible. I would make it, in short, the Alpha and Omega of knowledge.20
That's just a smattering.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755
Oldrotorhead
04-07-2013, 14:52
I'm more committed to the Constitution and ideas than the real estate . As long as there isn't a better place with a better Constitution I'll continue to be anti-PC and argue with Liberals. State's rights seems to be the best bet for now.
I'm more committed to the Constitution and ideas than the real estate . As long as there isn't a better place with a better Constitution I'll continue to be anti-PC and argue with Liberals. State's rights seems to be the best bet for now.
In your case, for sure. ;)
I don't really subscribe to the Judeo-Christian foundation of our country. The founding fathers mentioned God and some of the principles they utilized are found in the Bible (as they are also found in the Koran) but really, most of the documentation is relatively devoid of religion.
I'd suggest reading the Federalist Papers....the group below American Political Science Review...is a non religious affiliated lawyers org. They drew numerous ideas and cultural legal aspects from the Bible etc. without direct reference.
“A study by the American Political Science Review on the political documents of the founding era (1760-1805), [reported] that 94 percent of the period’s documents were based on the Bible, with 34 percent of the contents being direct citations from the Bible. The Scripture was the bedrock and blueprint of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, academic arenas and heritage until the last quarter of a century.”
The Capitol building was used as a Church for years...
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
Western Culture of which Judeo/Christian philosophical tenets and traditions were but a part.
Richard :munchin
Western Culture of which Judeo/Christian philosophical tenets and traditions were but a part.
Richard :munchin
Agree, many influences....buy the Judeo Christian element was a key factor IMO.
MTN Medic
04-07-2013, 16:06
Agree, many influences....buy the Judeo Christian element was a key factor IMO.
Key for what? As Dusty said, most were Christians. This doesn't correlate to the USA being a Christian Nation. The docs are all that matters. Anything you read into them is as fallacious as those that say the 2nd amendment only applies to the National Guard.
The "Christian Morals" predate Christianity by some time...
If you look into each of the ten commandments and even the teachings of those in the New Testament, the ideas were already in place. Take this example:
“Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.” – Pittacus
“Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.” – Thales
“What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others.” – Epictetus
and finally...
“Do to others as you want them to do to you.” Luke 6:31
These were not new concepts and their usage in the documents that frames our nation does not imply religiosity on the part of our nation but rather a continuation and a progression in thought to make the World better.
Key for what? As Dusty said, most were Christians. This doesn't correlate to the USA being a Christian Nation. The docs are all that matters. Anything you read into them is as fallacious as those that say the 2nd amendment only applies to the National Guard.
The "Christian Morals" predate Christianity by some time...
If you look into each of the ten commandments and even the teachings of those in the New Testament, the ideas were already in place. Take this example:
“Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.” – Pittacus
“Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.” – Thales
“What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others.” – Epictetus
and finally...
“Do to others as you want them to do to you.” Luke 6:31
These were not new concepts and their usage in the documents that frames our nation does not imply religiosity on the part of our nation but rather a continuation and a progression in thought to make the World better.
"Thou shalt not bang thy daughter." Fred Flintstone
......This doesn't correlate to the USA being a Christian Nation. ......................
Well, according to some highly elected officials this is a Muslim Country.
Key for what? As Dusty said, most were Christians. This doesn't correlate to the USA being a Christian Nation. The docs are all that matters. Anything you read into them is as fallacious as those that say the 2nd amendment only applies to the National Guard.
The "Christian Morals" predate Christianity by some time...
If you look into each of the ten commandments and even the teachings of those in the New Testament, the ideas were already in place. Take this example:
“Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.” – Pittacus
“Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.” – Thales
“What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others.” – Epictetus
and finally...
“Do to others as you want them to do to you.” Luke 6:31
These were not new concepts and their usage in the documents that frames our nation does not imply religiosity on the part of our nation but rather a continuation and a progression in thought to make the World better.
Ok, you choose not to take the Founders at their own word...good on ya.
The Country was predominately Christian for the first couple hundred years, and the laws were based on the Ten Commandments.
I've noticed the farther away from the routine and standard tenets of Judeo-Christianity we get, the farther down into the slime pit of aberrant behavior we slide.
It's abnormal to be a practicing Christian, now. Now, normal is two people of the same sex getting married, females trying to be Infantry Officers, Jesus on a Cross in a glass of piss, late-term abortions, crap like that.
This Country's going to hell in a handbasket.
This Country's going to hell in a handbasket.
Made in China
The Country was predominately Christian for the first couple hundred years, and the laws were based on the Ten Commandments.
And what laws might that be? The laws permitting slavery and the fugitive slave laws? The ‘Jim Crow’ laws? The laws denying women’s suffrage? The Eugenics-based forced sterilization laws? The laws forbidding interracial marriage? The laws interring Japanese-American citizens in WW2?
I've noticed the farther away from the routine and standard tenets of Judeo-Christianity we get, the farther down into the slime pit of aberrant behavior we slide.
It's abnormal to be a practicing Christian, now.
Is it? http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0075.pdf
Christian - 173M
Other Religions - 9M
No Religion Specified - 34M
No Response - 12M
Now, normal is two people of the same sex getting married...
Is it? Same sex marriage is allowed in only 9 of 50 states, and 39 states prohibit it either by statute or in their constitutions.
...females trying to be Infantry Officers...
Is it? Of soldiers and Marines applying for Infantry training, how many females have applied?
...Jesus on a Cross in a glass of piss...
Is it? An art exhibit by Andres Serrano in the 1990's exhibiting two series of photographs, of which Piss Christ was one work in one of the two series, which used kitchy Christian and Classical statuettes photographed through plexi-glas containers filled with urine, supposedly the artist’s own, is the ‘norm’?
...late-term abortions...
Is it? According to the Guttmacher Institute which tracks such matters, 88 percent of abortions occur within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, with only 1.5 percent occurring after 21 weeks' gestation.
This Country's going to hell in a handbasket.
Is it? :confused:
Richard :munchin
MTN Medic
04-07-2013, 20:38
Ok, you choose not to take the Founders at their own word...good on ya.
Hmmm. I think that this might be a stretch...
The Reaper
04-07-2013, 20:39
And what laws might that be? The laws permitting slavery and the fugitive slave laws? The ‘Jim Crow’ laws? The laws denying women’s suffrage? The Eugenics-based forced sterilization laws? The laws forbidding interracial marriage? The laws interring Japanese-American citizens in WW2?
Is it? http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0075.pdf
Christian - 173M
Other Religions - 9M
No Religion Specified - 34M
No Response - 12M
Is it? Same sex marriage is allowed in only 9 of 50 states, and 39 states prohibit it either by statute or in their constitutions.
Is it? Of soldiers and Marines applying for Infantry training, how many females have applied?
Is it? An art exhibit by Andres Serrano in the 1990's exhibiting two series of photographs, of which Piss Christ was one work in one of the two series, which used kitchy Christian and Classical statuettes photographed through plexi-glas containers filled with urine, supposedly the artist’s own, is the ‘norm’?
Is it? According to the Guttmacher Institute which tracks such matters, 88 percent of abortions occur within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, with only 1.5 percent occurring after 21 weeks' gestation.
This Country's going to hell in a handbasket.
Is it? :confused:
Richard :munchin[/QUOTE]
I'm still waiting for the artist to reprise with a "piss Mohammed".
Then we will see a 1st Amendment trial (perhaps by fire) for sure.
TR
MTN Medic
04-07-2013, 20:40
The Country was predominately Christian for the first couple hundred years, and the laws were based on the Ten Commandments.
I've noticed the farther away from the routine and standard tenets of Judeo-Christianity we get, the farther down into the slime pit of aberrant behavior we slide.
It's abnormal to be a practicing Christian, now. Now, normal is two people of the same sex getting married, females trying to be Infantry Officers, Jesus on a Cross in a glass of piss, late-term abortions, crap like that.
This Country's going to hell in a handbasket.
This country was not founded on the 10 commandments. The basic principle in which the 10 commandments were formed was much older. Obviously there will be parallels. Now, even if it were, does this make it a Christian nation or simply one that chose to utilize mores and memes that they wished to emulate?
The correct translation is, ”Thou shalt not do murder”. A tiny bit different. ;)
Pat
Translated literally, לא תרצח means don't murder, and is elaborated on in Jewish law as "do not take a life wantonly - without reason"; in an instance of a legitimate(legally recognized) need to take a life, i.e. killing an animal for food, killing in defense of oneself or those around him/her, or aborting a fetus that is an immediate physical threat to the mothers life, these actions are not merely permitted, but legally required in most cases.
MOO: The basis for the slippery slope argument is the foundation of one's moral value set.
When one looks to a divine/higher power/God given set of moral and ethical values, while they may be flexible with regards to circumstance, the parameters are defined, and ultimately static. Simply put: who are you, a mere mortal, to define and/or modify these values given by a higher power.
On the other hand, when one looks to his fellow man to define these values and principals, even with the best of intentions, and using commonly accepted values; the inherent danger is that someone, anyone, can gain enough common acceptance to modify these values: the common is what becomes relative. In the extreme, "morally" justifying the eradication of an entire race.
That said, while one can argue that the Founding Fathers drew on Judeo-Christian teaching and philosophy, they were also very opposed to a state religion. My understanding is that many of the morality laws were left to the states, and in this case, should be judged strictly from a legal standpoint. If he violated a law, he should pay the price, if not, let him be. As for Columbia, whatever their internal moral and ethical policies are come into play with regards to Mr. Epstein's continued employment.
Lastly, as an observant Jew, my views and opinions of incest are obviously partial, however, like QP MTN Medic, I subscribe to Oliver Wendel as well in practice: I do not "shop" my religion on others, nor do I expect others to go out of their way to accommodate my religious practices. Conversely, I expect others to refrain from preventing my observance and attacking(i.e ban on circumcision) my religious tenets. Essentially, my religious observance "ends at your nose" and your non-observance "ends at my nose", and both of our practices are within the bounds of law/constitution.
My .02
GratefulCitizen
04-07-2013, 21:44
Not endorsing what the colonies were doing, but let's have a look at the instant replay...
http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=69
Personally - I miss Aaron Sorkin's writing for this program.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUwm6WJRPIQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqLIH2UiPXg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jWOamlD9_8
Richard :munchin
This country was not founded on the 10 commandments. The basic principle in which the 10 commandments were formed was much older. Obviously there will be parallels. Now, even if it were, does this make it a Christian nation or simply one that chose to utilize mores and memes that they wished to emulate?
When I was a kid growing up in Texas, we didn't even lock the doors to anything-house, car, tools, guns-whatever. We had a latch on the screen door so the wind wouldn't blow it open. My dad had a .22 in his truck. We were hunting by five years of age. "Damn" was considered profanity in a movie, and there was no nudity. Everybody worked for a living, and if somebody needed help, everybody pitched in 'til they got back on their feet. People obeyed the Ten Commandments, and those who didn't got in trouble with those who did. You could trust a man's handshake.
You and Richard can't convince me moral relativity is good for the Country, because I'm old enough to have lived through the changes as moral standards have declined.
Used to be back in the old days that a young single girl who got in a family way was not looked upon to kindly by the local population.
The young lady would disappear for a while to have the child and put it up for adoption or have an illegal abortion somewhere.
Nowdays things are different.
For society as a whole has the change been an improvement?
Used to be back in the old days that a young single girl who got in a family way was not looked upon to kindly by the local population.
The young lady would disappear for a while to have the child and put it up for adoption or have an illegal abortion somewhere.
They went to live with Aunts in the Big City ;)
For society as a whole has the change been an improvement?
Society as a whole is a shit sandwich compared to the norm of post-WWII up until the hippies (progressive leftists) appeared.
Dozer523
04-08-2013, 08:42
Joining this discussion late due to an awesome drill -- four days on the ranges of Ft Knox.
"Of course I just owe almost everything to my father. He brought me up to believe almost all the things I do believe."
Margaret (The Iron Lady) Thacher. PM UK RIP
Absent from the comments is the recognition of the influence fathers have on how a daughter develops in her self-image, self-control, and self-confidence. Considering this; my first question is, "Was the daughter really capable of truly giving her consent to the sexual relationship with her father?"
When I was a kid growing up in Texas, we didn't even lock the doors to anything-house, car, tools, guns-whatever. We had a latch on the screen door so the wind wouldn't blow it open. My dad had a .22 in his truck. We were hunting by five years of age. "Damn" was considered profanity in a movie, and there was no nudity. Everybody worked for a living, and if somebody needed help, everybody pitched in 'til they got back on their feet. People obeyed the Ten Commandments, and those who didn't got in trouble with those who did. You could trust a man's handshake.
You and Richard can't convince me moral relativity is good for the Country, because I'm old enough to have lived through the changes as moral standards have declined.
Life seemed pretty much like that for us growing up out here in the farm country of NorCal, too, but growth has had an impact on that bit of nostalgic myopia, both my growth to adulthood and the population’s growth here in the area.
Returning home to visit over the years, I discovered that it wasn’t quite as rosy as my youthful sense of memory had seen it and I learned things, like why one family had been much less a pillar of the community than we kids were led to believe or why a classmate had gone to live with relatives her sophomore year of high school and so forth. There were a lot of secrets our parents were aware of and kept from us kids.
Yes, there were a lot of things going on that we weren’t aware of as kids and discovered as we grew older, but the basic rule which applied no matter what your religious views (Christianity and Buddhism were the major religions around here) was the so-called “Golden Rule” of “ethical reciprocity” which has a history amongst the world’s cultures long predating its adoption by Judaism and Christianity. It was practiced by my father and those he chose to associate with out here, it was expected of us, I expect it of my sons, and since moving back here permanently, my wife and I have found that that ‘rule’ ("law'?) and the promise of a handshake still holds true for many here in the valley.
For example, when I needed a section of leaking roof replaced this winter, I asked around the community and was put in touch with a local roofer who had learned and inherited the business from his father. I didn't know him, but he knew my brother and our family. He came out to look at the roof, explained what was wrong with it, sent me an estimate, and I called him to ask when he could get to it. We set a date and when I asked about a down payment, he told me to just pay him when the job was done. It took 2 days, I helped him because I wanted to see what he was doing and learn how to do it, and I paid him the agreed upon fee when he was finished. There was no contract, and he gave me a receipt and a warranty on it for a year. He's stopped by twice since then just to check and see how the roof was holding up during the recent rains.
On another point - since when has Hollywood and the film industry reflected but a Potemkinsche Dörfer view of our or anybody else’s society?
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/theatrefilm/projector/09-01-11/page102156.html
http://www.pictureshowman.com/articles_genhist_censorship.cfm
A side note - I had to keep my dog at bay while typing this response this morning as she was looking out the front window and badly wanted out so she could go after this rooster pheasant feeding out in the front pasture about 30' from the front porch and teasing her with his crowing (attchd pic).
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
On another point - since when has Hollywood and the film industry reflected but a Potemkinsche Dörfer view of our or anybody else’s society?
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Good point, but there are exceptions. Delta Force, starring Chuck Norris and Lee Marvin was on last night. Potemkinsche Dorfer? I think not...:D
Good point, but there are exceptions. Delta Force, starring Chuck Norris and Lee Marvin was on last night. Potemkinsche Dorfer? I think not...:D
Wait until this one's released - it's called "Oh...CRAP!" :D :D
Richard :munchin
Wait until this one's released - it's called "Oh...CRAP!" :D :D
Richard :munchin
lololol :D
Used to be back in the old days that a young single girl who got in a family way was not looked upon to kindly by the local population.
The young lady would disappear for a while to have the child and put it up for adoption or have an illegal abortion somewhere.
Nowdays things are different.
For society as a whole has the change been an improvement?
The same society that practiced segregation, and also hid/shunned/warehoused it's mentally ill, and handicapped. So yes, in the opinion of this FOG change has been a vast improvement. The "good old days" weren't quite what they are made out to have been.
The same society that practiced segregation, and also hid/shunned/warehoused it's mentally ill, and handicapped. So yes, in the opinion of this FOG change has been a vast improvement. The "good old days" weren't quite what they are made out to have been.
Apples and oranges.
I like to look at things through the filter of what I imagine Col Robert L. Howard would affect. I'm a big fan.
I believe he would think segregation and warehousing the handicapped would suck just as bad as some scumbag tupping his own daughter.
GreatfulService
04-08-2013, 11:55
These days even little gems like Amarillo are infested with meth addicts and crack heads, quite sad. Dusty I wish I'd lived in THAT Texas, but I'm with Richard, this 'Hell in a Handbasket' view which is so popular in modern churches only serves to prevent ppl from taking any restorative action because of the common consensus that the situation is completely fucked, is meant to be that way (the decline of our entire planet is predicted so the underlying message is its futile to interfere), and its a sign that the Janitor upstairs is soon to show up with a mop and scrub the filth away via Revelations.
As nice as it is to have a religious cannon irrefutably proven, I don't find the inaction, or this alleged 'mop' to be a very healthy outcome for our nation.
Having never seen 'your' Texas,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dMoK48QGL8
I have to say I'm still extremely happy in my ignorance of what it could be. God bless America and Texas!
:D
(spoken by a pantheist)
These days even little gems like Amarillo are infested with meth addicts and crack heads, quite sad. Dusty I wish I'd lived in THAT Texas, but I'm with Richard, this 'Hell in a Handbasket' view which is so popular in modern churches only serves to prevent ppl from taking any restorative action because of the common consensus that the situation is completely fucked, is meant to be that way (the decline of our entire planet is predicted so the underlying message is its futile to interfere), and its a sign that the Janitor upstairs is soon to show up with a mop and scrub the filth away via Revelations.
As nice as it is to have a religious cannon irrefutably proven, I don't find the inaction, or this alleged 'mop' to be a very healthy outcome for our nation.
Having never seen 'your' Texas,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dMoK48QGL8
I have to say I'm still extremely happy in my ignorance of what it could be. God bless America and Texas!
:D
(spoken by a pantheist)
"I see."
Dozer523
04-08-2013, 12:03
These days even little gems like Amarillo are infested with meth addicts and crack heads, quite sad. Dusty I wish I'd lived in THAT Texas, but I'm with Richard, . . . .I wish I'd lived in Texas in 1870 cuz I read a lot of books by Louis L'Amour and William W Johnston.
I wish I'd lived in Texas in 1870 cuz I read a lot of books by Louis L'Amour and William W Johnston.
I listened to stories my grandparents and father told me of life in Texas when they lived there; read Larry McMurtry and his tales of the Hat Creek Cattle Company and Livery Emporium crew; and saw the Disney versions of "Texas John Slaughter," "Pecos Bill and Sloughfoot Sue," and "Old Yeller" - I was pretty happy living in Texas when I did. ;)
Richard :munchin
Apples and oranges.
I like to look at things through the filter of what I imagine Col Robert L. Howard would affect. I'm a big fan.
I believe he would think segregation and warehousing the handicapped would suck just as bad as some scumbag tupping his own daughter.
Maybe to you it's apples and oranges, but it's the same (holier than thou) society that was fostering all terrible practices....while banging their neighbor's spouses.
Didn't that same society which shunned those pregnant young women also frown on divorce?
I remember those days, and I'm happy that I'm getting a chance to live in what you consider "a shit sandwich", because it is in my opinion a far better place than your "good old days".
Maybe to you it's apples and oranges, but it's the same (holier than thou) society that was fostering all terrible practices....while banging their neighbor's spouses.
Didn't that same society which shunned those pregnant young women also frown on divorce?
I remember those days, and I'm happy that I'm getting a chance to live in what you consider "a shit sandwich", because it is in my opinion a far better place than your "good old days".
Do you really hold the founding fathers in as much disdain as you sound like you do?
GreatfulService
04-08-2013, 12:28
I remember those days, and I'm happy that I'm getting a chance to live in what you consider "a shit sandwich", because it is in my opinion a far better place than your "good old days".[/QUOTE]
as much as i resent those poor miserable meth addicts.. being black or gay should never be a hangable offense, well said sir. Even though i'm a straight cracker, i guess i'll take the raised average level of Nacirema douche-baggery for the freedom of enlightened views.
Maybe to you it's apples and oranges, but it's the same (holier than thou) society that was fostering all terrible practices....while banging their neighbor's spouses.
Didn't that same society which shunned those pregnant young women also frown on divorce?
I remember those days, and I'm happy that I'm getting a chance to live in what you consider "a shit sandwich", because it is in my opinion a far better place than your "good old days".
It's done wonders for your disposition!
I've never met a lib who wasn't just plain miserable.
I wish I'd lived in Texas in 1870 cuz I read a lot of books by Louis L'Amour and William W Johnston.
lol Well, here's a present. Every Lamour book you've ever read distilled down to one page: :D
The man who called himself Bruce wore a black, flat-brimmed hat held low over the green eyes of a fighting man, riding a line-back zebra dun he‘d trained from a colt, with two .44 Russians tied low and a Winchester in the hollow of his arm like he was born with it. He was big in the shoulders, slim in the waist, with riders hips, and stood well over six feet in his socks. He was hell on wheels in any kind of a fight, with hands hardened from swinging an axe and a single jack
Rita was voluptuous with green-gold hair, and she was all woman. She took the blackened coffee pot off a fire made with mesquite, the little smoke it made was filtered through the branches of a gnarled, ancient cedar.
Brock Bannister held his gaze on Rita, from under beetling brows and above a flat nose in a lanterned-jawed face, and took a swallow of his coffee. It was hot as the back corner of hell and strong enough to float a horseshoe.
“Bruce will be here soon,” Rita breathed restlessly, her breast heaving under the grey traveling dress she wore. “Then he’ll cash in your chips.”
Bannister smiled and stood up to his full six foot six frame, stretching his back, and grinned through yellowed, broken teeth. “If he does, I’ll break him in two,” he said.
Just then, Bruce stepped out of the shadows, slipping the thongs off both pistols. “Want an even break, Brock?”” he asked, his eyes unsmiling.
Bannister spun, whipping out a pistol and shot twice, the first burning Bruce’s scalp, the other taking him through the flesh just over the hipbone.
Taking his time, Bruce cut the corners of the tobacco tag over Brock’s pocket, both shots sounded as if one. Bannister’s eyes glazed as his mouth worked, trying to say something, then he stood up on his toes and fell over into the dust, on his face.
Bruce woke up later and looked down to see the bandage on his side, and felt the one over his ear. Suddenly Rita appeared with a cool cloth.
“I don’t like to dress a man’s wounds unless I’m married to him.”
“We can do something about that,” Bruce grinned.
lol Well, here's a present. Every Lamour book you've ever read distilled down to one page: :D
Only L'Amour book I read was "Last Of The Breed" - it's a great read...maybe because it doesn't have anything like that summary in it. :p
Richard :munchin
Only L'Amour book I read was "Last Of The Breed" - it's a great read...maybe because it doesn't have anything like that summary in it. :p
Richard :munchin
That was a good book, except killing a mountain goat with a slingshot is a little farfetched...:D
It's done wonders for your disposition!
I've never met a lib who wasn't just plain miserable.
You call our country a "shit sandwich" and I'm the miserable one here!!!!!!
I'm happy as can be, been with my wonderful wife for 42 years, and looking forward to attending my lesbian niece's wedding up in RI. Luckily she has a very loving, non judgemental family (around 100 of us) who are flying in to celebrate her wedding with her.
MTN Medic
04-08-2013, 15:37
When I was a kid growing up in Texas, we didn't even lock the doors to anything-house, car, tools, guns-whatever. We had a latch on the screen door so the wind wouldn't blow it open. My dad had a .22 in his truck. We were hunting by five years of age. "Damn" was considered profanity in a movie, and there was no nudity. Everybody worked for a living, and if somebody needed help, everybody pitched in 'til they got back on their feet. People obeyed the Ten Commandments, and those who didn't got in trouble with those who did. You could trust a man's handshake.
You and Richard can't convince me moral relativity is good for the Country, because I'm old enough to have lived through the changes as moral standards have declined.
...and not too long ago, African Americans were chewed up by German Shepherds in the street for exercising their 1st amendment rights. I see it as a give and take, though I would rather lock my door and hear the word damn then see my neighbor chewed to bits for being black... I think the stronger moral imperative is truly treating everyone equally. We have made strong strides in this department (even over strided occasionally). I honestly think that the rosy lenses in which people view the past is dangerous. As people have stated earlier, life was great... if you were a white protestant male in the suburbs. History was written by the white middle class protestant males. This skews things a bit.
You call our country a "shit sandwich" and I'm the miserable one here!!!!!!
I'm happy as can be, been with my wonderful wife for 42 years, and looking forward to attending my lesbian niece's wedding up in RI. Luckily she has a very loving, non judgemental family (around 100 of us) who are flying in to celebrate her wedding with her.
Don't spin my meaning. I'm saying the progressive libs are trying to turn a wonderful Country into a shit sandwich, and you know it.
Incidently, how far is it from your place in NY to RI?
...and not too long ago, African Americans were chewed up by German Shepherds in the street for exercising their 1st amendment rights. I see it as a give and take, though I would rather lock my door and hear the word damn then see my neighbor chewed to bits for being black... I think the stronger moral imperative is truly treating everyone equally. We have made strong strides in this department (even over strided occasionally). I honestly think that the rosy lenses in which people view the past is dangerous. As people have stated earlier, life was great... if you were a white protestant male in the suburbs. History was written by the white middle class protestant males. This skews things a bit.
Pull the race card in an argument about a guy poking his own daughter?
Libthink.
I didn't sic any dogs on blacks, so how does that have anything to do with me or my doors being unlocked when I was a kid?
You're assuming I'm white, too. That's racist.
MTN Medic
04-08-2013, 17:04
Pull the race card in an argument about a guy poking his own daughter?
Libthink.
I didn't sic any dogs on blacks, so how does that have anything to do with me or my doors being unlocked when I was a kid?
You're assuming I'm white, too. That's racist.
It isn't pulling a race card; especially since I am white. If you would prefer for me to utilize an example of pre-suffrage women's rights or good ol' boys stringing up "qwers," I will, but it hardly seems necessary.
Re: the doors unlocked/dog analogy; It simply means that we have simply traded one evil for another and I do not think that the inconvenience of locking one's door really can equate with the torture and subjugation of a race.
It simply means that we have simply traded one evil for another and I do not think that the inconvenience of locking one's door really can equate with the torture and subjugation of a race.
I'm sure you make perfect sense, but I just can't seem to get the connection.
Don't spin my meaning. I'm saying the progressive libs are trying to turn a wonderful Country into a shit sandwich, and you know it.
Incidently, how far is it from your place in NY to RI?
I'm in Florida, not NY. By road it's about 1350 mi.
MTN Medic
04-08-2013, 17:12
Plus, I am not liberal (unless you are speaking of the classical definition). Assigning labels (especially incorrect ones) to one's opposition really cheapens one's argument. The World is not "us versus them." The World is far too complicated to assign such labels. Look at Museveni, look at Afghanistan (80s and now), look at all the complex political situations that we are mired in. It is foolish to assume that you can place a label: "good guy," "bad guy," "liberal," "conservative" as really those that subscribe to every facet of their parties "party lines" is merely guilty of lazy politics. If, perhaps one's beliefs just happen to correlate, then they are extremely lucky. The truth is, this is rarely the case and we force our political round pegs into convenient square holes. This is true of both parties. This topic transcends politics and is more governance philosophy. Perhaps I am miring the topic in semantics, but I think it is an important distinction.
MTN Medic
04-08-2013, 17:16
I'm sure you make perfect sense, but I just can't seem to get the connection.
What I was trying to get at is this: The past is not as rosy as we think. It had its problems and so do we today. My personal belief is that overall, we have progressed more than we have regressed. The only difference is that we have done it in different areas. We have progressed in the realm of treating our fellow man better and I think that this is important; especially for men of God (whomever that may be).
Plus, I am not liberal (unless you are speaking of the classical definition). Assigning labels (especially incorrect ones) to one's opposition really cheapens one's argument. The World is not "us versus them." The World is far too complicated to assign such labels. Look at Museveni, look at Afghanistan (80s and now), look at all the complex political situations that we are mired in. It is foolish to assume that you can place a label: "good guy," "bad guy," "liberal," "conservative" as really those that subscribe to every facet of their parties "party lines" is merely guilty of lazy politics. If, perhaps one's beliefs just happen to correlate, then they are extremely lucky. The truth is, this is rarely the case and we force our political round pegs into convenient square holes. This is true of both parties. This topic transcends politics and is more governance philosophy. Perhaps I am miring the topic in semantics, but I think it is an important distinction.
Oh, I didn't call you a liberal; I had suspected a closer description would have been "libertarian"-I stated that interjecting racial crimes into a discussion about incest was "libthink", a fall-back, sure-fire tactic often utilized by so-called progressives.
I don't think it's foolish to think that one can place a "good guy"-"bad guy" label on anybody, regardless of political bent, and I ascribe to the fact that any guy who schlepps his blood-kin daughter is a "bad guy".
The other points you make are outstanding.
What I was trying to get at is this: The past is not as rosy as we think. It had its problems and so do we today. My personal belief is that overall, we have progressed more than we have regressed. The only difference is that we have done it in different areas. We have progressed in the realm of treating our fellow man better and I think that this is important; especially for men of God (whomever that may be).
Let's take a specific geographical area-Chicago. How does your theorem fit in that example?
I'm in Florida, not NY. By road it's about 1350 mi.
Whew! That's quite a drive. Not to hijack, but did you retire to FL, or...?
MTN Medic
04-08-2013, 17:29
Let's take a specific geographical area-Chicago. How does your theorem fit in that example?
Chicago, in my mind has regressed much more in many more ways than the rest of the nation. It has had its notable progressions, but overall, didn't fare too well. The corruption did not wane as it has in other areas and the "progressive dogma" was exponentially accelerated there making many of the regressions much more impactful. Furthermore, the progress they made with racism really regressed on some levels with their policies which subjugated (you read that right) whites. So, overall, Chicago turned out to be one of the rotten apples in the progress of our nation. It reaped the fewest facets of progress while chalking up the most facets of regression.
Chicago, in my mind has regressed much more in many more ways than the rest of the nation. It has had its notable progressions, but overall, didn't fare too well. The corruption did not wane as it has in other areas and the "progressive dogma" was exponentially accelerated there making many of the regressions much more impactful. Furthermore, the progress they made with racism really regressed on some levels with their policies which subjugated (you read that right) whites. So, overall, Chicago turned out to be one of the rotten apples in the progress of our nation. It reaped the fewest facets of progress while chalking up the most facets of regression.
Agreed. You can also lump just about all of the northeastern major cities and many of those in the south in with the same description: the root cause can be traced back to politically liberal "progressive" plans put in place by the same types who think makin' bacon with your daughter should be excused, guns should be banned, females should be pro football players (although, if they have their way, football will soon be safe enough for female babies to play), etc.
Whew! That's quite a drive. Not to hijack, but did you retire to FL, or...?
Don't have the time to drive, going to fly.
Nope, I've been here for 35 years, retired about 10 years ago!
Dusty paints a rosy picture (Leave it to Beverish) of life of post WWII years in America) until the hippies appeared in the 60's, but the truth is that things like rape, incest, maritial infidelity, domestic violence, robbery, burglary, DUI, murder, and political corruption, etc. were happening just as they do today. Mafia, organized crime, with it's human trafficing, prostitution, gambling, untaxed cigarettes, loan sharking drugs and other criminal activity were all there. What we didn't have was cable TV with it's 24-7-365 news, World Wide Web, and cell phones.
When I went to college in Oklahoma in 1961, this NY boy was disturbed to see "Colored Restrooms" in public buildings in Texas. In 1966 I found it even more disturbing to see the despicable way a black SF trainee was treated by a group of trainees from Mississippi and Alabama in the barracks. Yuuuup! Those were the "good old days".
No nudity in theaters, Dusty? I saw Briggite Bardot in And God Created Woman in a movie theater in 1957. Texas was very puritanical! What in the hell is wrong with seeing the undrapped human body?
I am beginning to suspect that Dusty was a script writer for "The Waltons" in a previous life. :p :D
Richard :munchin
In 1966 I found it even more disturbing to see the despicable way a black SF trainee was treated by a group of trainees from Mississippi and Alabama in the barracks. Yuuuup! Those were the "good old days".
I was in basic in '67 at Ft. Polk. Lots of "everbodies" there. I grew up in Texas and Oklahoma. We didn't have ANY racial trouble in basic except one black guy who fell back to sleep after I woke him for Fire Guard and he was caught. He came after me! All us "crackers" loved the jam sessions we had with the "brothers" in the latrine while washing clothes. We rocked!
Let's see, with Democrat Party imposed "segregation" the black community had a lower divorce rate than whites. Now, 70% of black children grow up in a fatherless home. Which is worse?
Look up the stats on lynchings, too. From 1882 to 1968 there were 3446:http://www.chesnuttarchive.org/classroom/lynchings_table_state.html . That comes out to about 40 per year. How many black-on-black murders happen every month?
Sure, there was shame in getting pregnant out of wedlock. That shame helped restrain others from doing so.
Were the men/fathers perfect in the '50s? Are they now(?) What had they just gone through? Raised in a Government induced Depression, fighting a World War, and returning to women "liberated" because they had to fill in for the men who were at war. Pay freezes caused businesses to come up with "benefits" to attract workers. Benefits are now government mandates. All of the different names of identical cuts of meat? Price freezes again!
At 16 I had a gun rack in my car and parked it at school. I could buy ammo at the hardware store. I can't get it anywhere now!
A retired doctor could hang up a shingle in front of his house so when we injured ourselves playing Cowboys and Indians we could just walk down the block for repair. And no elfing paperwork!
Yes, IT WAS BETTER BACK THEN! Not perfect, but a damn sight better than the country we are leaving my son.
Pat
Yes, IT WAS BETTER BACK THEN! Not perfect, but a damn sight better than the country we are leaving my son.
YGBSM. :eek: :eek: :eek:
But I guess it all depends on who you talk to...
Richard :munchin
YGBSM. :eek: :eek: :eek:
Richard :munchin
No, Richard, I'm not. Certain things WERE better as I said. If your life was worse, I'm sorry. I was in Beaumont from 1955-59 and the Oklahoma Panhandle until I joined the Army in '67.
Point me to my errors, please.
Pat
No, Richard, I'm not. Certain things WERE better as I said. If your life was worse, I'm sorry. I was in Beaumont from 1955-59 and Oklahoma until I joined the Army in '67.
Point me to my errors, please.
Pat
As I said - it all depends on whom you talk to about those times - and I'm certain that a Hispanic or African-American living in Beaumont at that time would have an entirely different point-of-view than yours.
Richard :munchin
The Reaper
04-08-2013, 21:51
No, Richard, I'm not. Certain things WERE better as I said. If your life was worse, I'm sorry. I was in Beaumont from 1955-59 and the Oklahoma Panhandle until I joined the Army in '67.
Point me to my errors, please.
Pat
I'm with you, Pat.
And I believe that having a father and a mother in the home is probably more important for success than the negatives being cited.
I grew up in a segregated community, and was in the 4th Grade when we were integrated.
Most of the black friends I had grew up to be successful in their lives. How many black children can make that claim today?
TR
As I said - it all depends on whom you talk to about those times - and I'm certain that a Hispanic or African-American living in Beaumont at that time would have an entirely different point-of-view than yours.
Richard :munchin
That I totally agree with, but we are talking "in retrospect" here. A black man my age who grew up there at the same time, looking at the plight of younger blacks today, may well agree with me today.
BTW, 'twernt no Mexicans in Beaumont back then. Had a bunch of coon-asses, though. And before you younger guys start calling for me to be banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coonass ;)
Oklahoma was very racist....just ask any Native American who was taken from their family to be schooled by the US Government at Chilico Indian School (and other BIA institutions) who attempted to beat the Indian of of them. Yuuup! Things were better in the "good old days"
From 1995 -2008, I used to pass through Beaumont/Port Arthur each spring enroute to Sea Rim for a week-long service project with our sophomore classes. The area always seemed depressed, economically and socially, and even more so after hurricane's Katrina and Ike.
Here's a 'macro' view from the Tx State Historical Assn:
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdb02
I have a good friend who is now with the Houston FD and played baseball at Lamar while studying for a mechanical engineering degree - he says they didn't leave campus much and he'll never go back.
I guess those were the days...sounds as if you were 'lucky'...
Richard :munchin
Oklahoma was very racist....just ask any Native American who was taken from their family to be schooled by the US Government at Chilico Indian School (and other BIA institutions) who attempted to beat the Indian of of them. Yuuup! Things were better in the "good old days"
The State of Oklahoma did that? Don't think so. But, I mostly agree that the Indians who chose reservation life faired worse than those who didn't. But, the Osage tribe were given the worst land in Oklahoma...and it turned out to have the most oil! I think that they were the first tribe to "hit the jackpot". ;)
How'd the Indians fare in New Amsterdam, by the way? :D
Pat
I'm with you, Pat.
And I believe that having a father and a mother in the home is probably more important for success than the negatives being cited.
I grew up in a segregated community, and was in the 4th Grade when we were integrated.
Most of the black friends I had grew up to be successful in their lives. How many black children can make that claim today?
TR
How many African American (and other minoritiies) college graduates were there compared to whites in the 1940, 1950, 1960, compared to 2000, 2010.
OU didn't have a black football player until 1956 when Prentiss Gautt (RIP) was put on the roster by Bud Wilkinson (RIP) a native Minnesotan.
From 1995 -2008, I used to pass through Beaumont/Port Arthur each spring enroute to Sea Rim for a week-long service project with our sophomore classes. The area always seemed depressed, economically and socially, and even more so after hurricane's Katrina and Ike.
Here's a 'macro' view from the Tx State Historical Assn:
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdb02
I have a good friend who is now with the Houston FD and played baseball at Lamar while studying for a mechanical engineering degree - he says he'll never go back.
I guess those were the days...sounds as if you were 'lucky'...
Richard :munchin
I would not go back now, either. We are talking about a time when it was an oil boom town, almost 60 years ago. ;)
Pat
I would not go back now, either. We are talking about a time when it was an oil boom town, almost 60 years ago. ;)
Pat
And segregated...I would guess your POV would depend upon which 'side of the tracks' you were on.
Richard :munchin
How many African American (and other minoritiies) college graduates were there compared to whites in the 1940, 1950, 1960, compared to 2000, 2010.
OU didn't have a black football player until 1956 when Prentiss Gautt (RIP) was put on the roster by Bud Wilkinson (RIP) a native Minnesotan.
Bud was a family friend and I sat at the diner table with him several times. (OK, it was often the kids table :p) What are you trying to prove. Nobody has said that racism and segregation didn't exist. It still does. Feel free to buy a house in Watts or Compton.
Then again, I had a black neighbor in Hermosa Beach. Actually, he wasn't my black neighbor, he was my friend that also owned an Akita and we spent a lot of time walking them together. Common interests and backgrounds are more important today. I never walked my dog with the CPA who lived next door. (Alhough I did walk my dog with Fletcher Dragge of Pennywise occationally ;)).
Pat
Here's what a good friend of mine (Native American/native Oklahoman) had to say about "the good old days".
“We Are Not Free” (1968)
Clyde M Warrior
Most members of the National Indian Youth Council can remember when we were children and spent many hours at the feet of our grandfathers listening to stories of the time when Indians were a great people, when we were free, when we were rich, when we lived the good life. At the same time we heard stories of droughts, famines, and pestilence. It was only recently that we realized that there was surely great material deprivation in those days, but that our old people felt rich because they were free. They were rich in things of the spirit, but if there is one thing that characterizes Indian life today it is poverty of the spirit. We still have human passions and depth of feeling (which may be something rare in these days), but we are poor in spirit because we are not free—free in the most basic sense of the word. We are not allowed to make those basic human choices and decisions about our personal life and about the destiny of our communities which is the mark of free mature people. We sit on our front porches or in our yards, and the world and our lives in it pass us by without our desires or aspirations having any effect.
We are not free. We do not make choices. Our choices are made for us; we are the poor. For those of us who live on reservations these choices and decisions are made by federal administrators, bureaucrats, and their “yes men,” euphemistically called tribal governments. Those of us who live in nonreservation areas have our lives controlled by local white power elites. We have many rulers. They are called social workers, “cops,” school teachers, churches, etc., and now OEO employees. They call us into meetings to tell us what is good for us and how they’ve programmed us, or they come into our homes to instruct us and their manners are not always what one would call polite by Indian standards or perhaps by any standards. We are rarely accorded respect as fellow human deings. Our children come home from school to us with shame in their hearts and a sneer on their lips for their home and parents. We are the “poverty problem” and that is true; and perhaps it is also true that our lack of reasonable choices, our lack of freedoms, and our poverty of the spirit is not unconnected with our material poverty."
more....
http://melanconent.com/lib/oc/wearenotfree.html
And segregated...I would guess your POV would depend upon which 'side of the tracks' you were on.
Richard :munchin
Perspective, amigo. Do you not think that we felt just as segregated as they? If I had to pee, I had to look at the signs, too. And, if I was thirsty? Plus, at school, we also had "girl's" and "boy's" drinking fountains. It was frustrating for us little ones as well. Especially when we couldn't read, yet. :D
Guys, read the biographies of Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell. They were black and grew up in that era. You might learn things like the "sitting at the back of the bus" law was instituted by the local government because private bus companies didn't require it. Government imposed it.
Pat
The "good ol' days"....which didn't end all that long ago in Texas and other areas...if it has... :confused:
Living in Dallas, I grew to appreciate the subtlety of Mr Hale's writing as I grew to appreciate the subtlety of Lewis Grizzard's when I was living in Georgia, John Steinbeck's while growing up in NorCal, and Günter Grass' while living in Germany.
Ironically, I encountered the very same 'thinking' they subltley described in their writings long after they were gone.
Richard :munchin
My Friend Munroe
Hale, Leon. Texas Chronicles.
We were the same age, about twelve, when Munroe began coming to our neighborhood several times a week. He came with his mother, who washed and ironed and cleaned house and cooked. Not in my family’s house. In another house down the street.
What drew him to our yard was the football. I’d gotten a football for Christmas and he’d wander up and sit at the end of the hedge and watch us play. I wonder now if he’d ever touched a football before then. I doubt it.
But from the first time that ball bounced his way, he could kick and pass and catch it better than any of the others of us. A natural athlete. Tall for his age, maybe a couple of inches taller than I was then, and he had those long muscles that so many good athletes have. I spent two summers trying to do something better, in the matter of sports, than Munroe could. I never did.
This was in 1934 and 1935, in West Texas, so all those bizarre rules of racial separation were a part of our social structure. But the rules applied to minors in a strange fashion. They were more complex than the rules governing sdults.
For example: Two thirteen-year-old boys, one white and one black, kicking a football in the street wouldn’t draw any special notice in our town. But the place where the football was being kicked was significant. The street, that was okay. If they happened to been playing in somebody’s yard, that was a little different. It might cause the head of a passerby to turn, see who those boys were, playing together in the yard that way. If the boys went to the playground of the white school to kick the ball, even on a Saturday, that was getting close to a violation. And for a black youngster to play on the white schoolyard when school was going on—well, it just wasn’t done.
Munroe and I never talked about the rules but we knew them.
That first winter I had the football, we came close to wearing the thing out in the street. We played a two-man kicking game popular then. You tried to back your opponent to his goal by outkicking him, and then to score you had to drop-kick over the line.
Drop-kicking is almost never seen now but a good dropkicker was held in high regard in the time of Munroe and me. I bet Munroe was the best teen-aged dropkicker in creation. My guess is, though, he never got to play an organized football game. Too bad.
Munroe did not go into our house, ever. When I would go in for a minute he would say that he’d wait outside.
From Munroe I began to learn a bit, just a suggestion, of what it meant to be black in our town. One day I went with him to the house where his mother was working. We went to the back door. His mother was cooking fried pies. She gave us one and told us to sit on the back steps and eat it and we did.
I knew the family that lived in that house. If I had come to the house alone I would have gone to the front door. If they had given me a fried pie I would have eaten it at the table where the family ate. But since I came with Munroe I went to the back door and sat outside and ate the pie.
I would prefer to remember that I was outraged by this discrimination. But I really wasn’t. I mainly felt that it was interesting, to share with Munroe that small black experience. It seemed to me a curious privilege I had as a white—that I could go with Munroe and feel black for a couple of minutes, but he could not go with me and feel white.
Two or three times Munroe took me to his house. It always smelled like turnips cooking. I mentioned that and Munroe said they had been eating lots and lots of turnips lately.
One time I went to a black softball game that Munroe played in. My father took me. My father liked going to black affairs because they always seated him on the front row and made him feel special. I was not comfortable on the front row. When Munroe came to white softball games he sat down the first-base line, away from the white folks. When we came to black games, we sat on the front row behind the plate. But I didn’t say anything to my father because he liked the system.
The only time I got as angry as I should have gotten was when I visited Munroe’s school. It was really bad. It was disgraceful. Even so, I didn’t imagine there was anything I could ever do about it. And I was angry only for Munroe, not for the other black kids.
So my awareness of racial injustice was that limited. But it was a beginning, and Munroe was the reason for it.
Here's what a good friend of mine (Native American/native Oklahoman) had to say about "the good old days".
“We Are Not Free” (1968)
Clyde M Warrior
Most members of the National Indian Youth Council can remember when we were children and spent many hours at the feet of our grandfathers listening to stories of the time when Indians were a great people, when we were free, when we were rich, when we lived the good life. At the same time we heard stories of droughts, famines, and pestilence. It was only recently that we realized that there was surely great material deprivation in those days, but that our old people felt rich because they were free. They were rich in things of the spirit, but if there is one thing that characterizes Indian life today it is poverty of the spirit. We still have human passions and depth of feeling (which may be something rare in these days), but we are poor in spirit because we are not free—free in the most basic sense of the word. We are not allowed to make those basic human choices and decisions about our personal life and about the destiny of our communities which is the mark of free mature people. We sit on our front porches or in our yards, and the world and our lives in it pass us by without our desires or aspirations having any effect.
We are not free. We do not make choices. Our choices are made for us; we are the poor. For those of us who live on reservations these choices and decisions are made by federal administrators, bureaucrats, and their “yes men,” euphemistically called tribal governments. Those of us who live in nonreservation areas have our lives controlled by local white power elites. We have many rulers. They are called social workers, “cops,” school teachers, churches, etc., and now OEO employees. They call us into meetings to tell us what is good for us and how they’ve programmed us, or they come into our homes to instruct us and their manners are not always what one would call polite by Indian standards or perhaps by any standards. We are rarely accorded respect as fellow human deings. Our children come home from school to us with shame in their hearts and a sneer on their lips for their home and parents. We are the “poverty problem” and that is true; and perhaps it is also true that our lack of reasonable choices, our lack of freedoms, and our poverty of the spirit is not unconnected with our material poverty."
more....
http://melanconent.com/lib/oc/wearenotfree.html
Again, not the Oklahoma Government (it was still a territory) or it's people. The Federal Government. Did the people agree? Probably. Everybody hated every one else back then. Do you think "Sooners" was a positive nickname?
Pat
Yes, IT WAS BETTER BACK THEN! Not perfect, but a damn sight better than the country we are leaving my son.
Perhaps Michael Moorcock was correct when he wrote the following.A nation's real health can be measured, I sometimes think, by the degree in which it sentimentalizes experience.*
In any case, I would think a more sustainable argument about how good the good old days were for blacks could be made if one were to look at such statistics as life expectancy, death rate, and infant mortality and then to compare those statistics to different cohorts over time.
____________________________________________
* Michael Moorcock, ISBN 0446611204, p. 101.
The "good ol' days"....which didn't end all that long ago in Texas and other areas...if it has... :confused:
Living in Dallas, I grew to appreciate the subtlety of Mr Hale's writing as I grew to appreciate the subtlety of Lewis Grizzard's when I was living in Georgia, John Steinbeck's while growing up in NorCal, and Günter Grass' while living in Germany.
Come on, Richard. There was not a black or brown face in Guymon Oklahoma when I was there and I could write that very same tale. There are always those who are poorer, different, or live on the wrong side of "the tracks". Hell, even in the Army there are you Officers and us peons. :D
Pat
MOO - put down the entrenching tool and move on.
Richard :munchin
Perhaps Michael Moorcock was correct when he wrote the following.
In any case, I would think a more sustainable argument about how good the good old days were for blacks could be made if one were to look at such statistics as life expectancy, death rate, and infant mortality and then to compare those statistics to different cohorts over time.
____________________________________________
* Michael Moorcock, ISBN 0446611204, p. 101.
"There you go again." Got any of your own history of this period you'd like to share? This is about how all Americans lived then and now. How was infant mortality overall? Ever heard about bans on (white) children of a certain age at certain times of the year because of polio? Ever seen a iron lung? Know what it is?
There is history that you live and history that you read about. They are rarely the same.
Pat
"There you go again." Got any of your own history of this period you'd like to share? This is about how all Americans lived then and now. How was infant mortality overall? Ever heard about bans on (white) children of a certain age at certain times of the year because of polio? Ever seen a iron lung? Know what it is?
There is history that you live and history that you read about. They are rarely the same.
Pat
Precisely how do your own anecdotal experiences enable you to generalize about how "all Americans lived then and now"?
Precisely how do your own anecdotal experiences enable you to generalize about how "all Americans lived then and now"?
Same as you historians?
Pat
Same as you historians?
PatMoral relativism in full bloom....It is all the same.
How about that.
How about that.
Is that declarative or a question? ;)
I asked you a question earlier.
Pat
Is that declarative or a question? ;)
I asked you a question earlier.
PatYou're the one offering an interpretation that things were better in the good old days. How about you doing your own research to substantiate your argument. Or is a trip through the corridors of your memory and some cherry picked facts from a cursory Google search enough for you?
Then again, I had a black neighbor in Hermosa Beach. Actually, he wasn't my black neighbor, he was my friend that also owned an Akita and we spent a lot of time walking them together.
A rhetorical question: Do you refer to your white friends by their race--"He's my best white friend--or just the black ones?
You're the one offering an interpretation that things were better in the good old days. How about you doing your own research to substantiate your argument. Or is a trip through the corridors of your memory and some cherry picked facts from a cursory Google search enough for you?
A rhetorical question: Do you refer to your white friends by their race--"He's my best white friend--or just the black ones?
That, sir, is a misrepresentation and an insult. And no, my friend, I do not identify my friends by color unless it's to reinforce my argument that it is, in fact, a non-issue.
Pat
ddoering
04-09-2013, 05:59
This whole thread is nothing but cherry picked facts. This day in age to have apologists decrying the sins of the past is truly pathetic. Get over it and move on. Of course some of you may be apologizing for more personal reasons.........
Why should white people have to lower their standard of living to make minorities feel good?
This whole thread is nothing but cherry picked facts. This day in age to have apologists decrying the sins of the past is truly pathetic. Get over it and move on. Of course some of you may be apologizing for more personal reasons.........
Why should white people have to lower their standard of living to make minorities feel good?
lol Libs always use blacks as straw puppets in their arguments.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2287315198001/left-wings-latest-target-black-conservatives/?playlist_id=1621774019001
This whole thread is nothing but cherry picked facts. This day in age to have apologists decrying the sins of the past is truly pathetic. Get over it and move on. Of course some of you may be apologizing for more personal reasons.........
Why should white people have to lower their standard of living to make minorities feel good?
Anytime the 'Good Ole Days' is brought up the RaCiSm argument is in thrown into the mix to......it's like bringing up the NAZI's and Goodwin's Law applies :eek:
Again, not the Oklahoma Government (it was still a territory) or it's people. The Federal Government. Did the people agree? Probably. Everybody hated every one else back then. Do you think "Sooners" was a positive nickname?
Pat
Still a territory? Oklahoma became a state in 1907, Clyde Warrior was born in 1939 in the State of Oklahoma. Sure, the Federal Govt (people not a machine) created the policies, but it was still in Oklahoma. Unlike Dusty's boyhood in Utopia, I wouldn't describe Warrior's time growing up in Oklahoma as "the good old days".
"Sooners" was a a lot more positive nickname than "Boomers" which it replaced.
Boomer Sooner!! :D
Still a territory? Oklahoma became a state in 1907, Clyde Warrior was born in 1939 in the State of Oklahoma. Sure, the Federal Govt (people not a machine) created the policies, but it was still in Oklahoma. Unlike Dusty's boyhood in Utopia, I wouldn't describe Warrior's time growing up in Oklahoma as "the good old days".
"Sooners" was a a lot more positive nickname than "Boomers" which it replaced.
Boomer Sooner!! :D
Dusty isn't the only one who grew up in utopia. Apparently I did also (born and raised in Oklahoma). I would agree more with his characterization than yours. Also, picking Clyde Warrior as a reference says more about where you stand than you think. A quick google search and you can see the flaming liberal that he is. Nothing wrong with that, but at least admit that you also are cherry picking.
One good thing about the '40s and '50s was TV wasn't jamb packed with televangelists, and infomercials. :D
One good thing about the '40s and '50s was TV wasn't jamb packed with televangelists, and infomercials. :D
Another good thing is that honor was valued, not skirted or sneered upon.
Another good thing is that honor was valued, not skirted or sneered upon.
We don't value 'honor'??? :confused:
Richard :munchin
We don't value 'honor'??? :confused:
Richard :munchin
Who's we? I do. I'm talking about the liberaces being the ones who show disdain.
There are examples galore, Richard. Or are you being facetious? :munchin
Dusty isn't the only one who grew up in utopia. Apparently I did also (born and raised in Oklahoma). I would agree more with his characterization than yours. Also, picking Clyde Warrior as a reference says more about where you stand than you think. A quick google search and you can see the flaming liberal that he is. Nothing wrong with that, but at least admit that you also are cherry picking.
Citing Clyde Warrior (RIP) who spoke of the plight of Native Americans all over the US, not just Oklahoma is cherry picking?
What does it say about me, beyond that I too believe strongly in human rights?
BTW, What would you do if the government tried to take away your guns, like they tried to take the Indian out of Clyde Warrior?
Citing Clyde Warrior (RIP) who spoke of the plight of Native Americans all over the US, not just Oklahoma is cherry picking?
What does it say about me, beyond that I too believe strongly in human rights?
lol Why don't you defend the rights of the tribes that were displaced on this continent by the "Native Americans", then.
I used to think you libs looked at the world through rose-colored spectacles, but I've come to realize over the years they're actually mule blinders.
Who's we? I do. I'm talking about the liberaces being the ones who show disdain.
There are examples galore, Richard. Or are you being facetious? :munchin
And I would argue there are far more examples of people not showing such disdain than exhibiting it.
The value we place on honor (e.g., a vet) allows posers to pull all kinds of scams on people; the value we place on honor (e.g., honorable military service) is shown by the huge number of businesses who give discounts or waive certain fees for veterans; the value we place on honor is such that when somebody discovers you are a veteran, the nearly inevitable response is a heartfelt, "Thank you for your service" no matter where or with what branch of the armed forces you served; opinion polls of professions deemed to be "trustworthy, ethical, honorable" nearly always place our nation's military in the top 5 ranks (usually in the top 2); the value we place on someone achieving the rank of Eagle Scout (BSA) or the Gold Award (GSA) shows how much we value those honors and the view of their recipients as having great 'honor'; usw.
However, I realize not everyone values honor as a noteworthy trait - I don't fully understand why but doubt there ever has been a time in History in which everyone ever did. But to declare we, as a society, once did and no longer do is an unsupportable statement IMO.
However, YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
And I would argue there are far more examples of people not showing such disdain than exhibiting it.
The value we place on honor (e.g., a vet) allows posers to pull all kinds of scams on people; the value we place on honor (e.g., honorable military service) is shown by the huge number of businesses who give discounts or waive certain fees for veterans; the value we place on honor is such that when somebody discovers you are a veteran, the nearly inevitable response is a heartfelt, "Thank you for your service" no matter where or with what branch of the armed services you served; and opinion polls of professions deemed to be "trustworthy, ethical, honorable" nearly always place our nation's military in the top 5 ranks (usually in the top 2); the value we place on someone achieving the rank of Eagle Scout (BSA) or the Gold Award (GSA) shows how much we value those honors and the view of their recipients as having great 'honor'; usw.
However, I realize not everyone values honor as a noteworthy trait - I don't fully understand why but doubt there ever has been a time in History in which everyone ever did. But to declare we, as a society, once did and no longer do is an unsupportable statement IMO.
However, YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Here's a good example of lib honor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YrDwYNEyw8
And Bill Ayers is your argument that his personal POV means we, as a nation, do not value honor? Hunh.
Richard :munchin
You're trying to spin my case.
Bill Ayers' extolling of Kerry's virtue in the act of throwing away the awards he received in protest of a war in which he was an Officer in the service of his Country is a perfect example of liberace disdain for honor, any way you want to twist it. Look where Kerry is, now-in a lib administration.
The Clinton experience harbors a treasure trove of examples for both BJ and Hil of the besmirchment of honor, as well, but it would be more expedient for you to google those up for yourself, Bro. ;)
One thing one has to admire about libs and their apologists-theyr'e stubborn. Even when it's as obvious as the sun that they're dead wrong, they keep on posing their ridiculous arguments.
Conservative: A guy shouldn't screw his own daughter.
Liberace: Why did you blowtorch all those blacks and commit genocide on the indigenous peoples of the Country?
What a freaking headache for a man in his right mind.
lol Why don't you defend the rights of the tribes that were displaced on this continent by the "Native Americans", then.
I used to think you libs looked at the world through rose-colored spectacles, but I've come to realize over the years they're actually mule blinders.
Which tribes were displaced by Native Americans in the in the post WWII era?
I believe your parents implanted mule blinders in your eyes at birth .:D
ddoering
04-09-2013, 08:41
But to declare we, as a society, once did and no longer do is an unsupportable statement IMO.
However, YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
And yet we are expected to believe that one native American speaks of the suffering of all the Indian Nations.......
ddoering
04-09-2013, 08:47
Anytime the 'Good Ole Days' is brought up the RaCiSm argument is in thrown into the mix to......it's like bringing up the NAZI's and Goodwin's Law applies :eek:
I knew we would get to the Nazis eventually. There are a few simularities between the immediate post WW1 period and today. An active far right, an active far left, and a government which does not hold the confidence of the majority. All it will take is one bold action by either side to launch us into a Freicorps type situation.
Enough from me. I gotta oil up the guns and scour the hatchet.:munchin
Dozer523
04-09-2013, 08:54
Who's we? I do. I'm talking about the liberaces . . . :munchinoh goodie, a new label to track and this one appears to not only denigrate a way of thinking but now includes disdain for piano players.
I thought we were talking about a guy who boffs his daughter, or did but might not - probably doesn't anymore - a few years ago and who used to work at Columbia but doesn't anymore. But, because she is an adult and it takes place behind the closed doors of a residence it really isn't any of our business (except somehow it's not behind closed doors) or regardless of personal freedoms there are something's that just should not be done. Unless they were done in the good old days when things were so much better.
I love this place.
oh goodie, a new label to track and this one appears to not only denigrate a way of thinking but now includes disdain for piano players.
I thought we were talking about a guy who boffs his daughter, or did but might not - probably doesn't anymore - a few years ago and who used to work at Columbia but doesn't anymore. But, because she is an adult and it takes place behind the closed doors of a residence it really isn't any of our business (except somehow it's not behind closed doors) or regardless of personal freedoms there are something's that just should not be done. Unless they were done in the good old days when things were so much better.
I love this place.
In the abstract, I would agree that what happens behind closed doors is none of anyones business (as long as people are of the age of consent). However, in the case of incest, there is the likely by-product of children being born with severe birth defects of varying types. I think society has a vested interest in drawing some line on behavior, especially if society at large may have to bear the economic burden of dealing with the children born of incestuous relationships.
I believe your parents implanted mule blinders in your eyes at birth .:D
Well, to stay on topic, at least my granddaddy and my daddy weren't the same dude.
And yet we are expected to believe that one native American speaks of the suffering of all the Indian Nations.......
I didn't say he did. He was however speaking for more than just himself when he spoke before the President’s National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, in 1967.
C'mon, Dozer; Richard. I laid that one up for you like a fried egg. :D
You're trying to spin my case.
Bill Ayers' extolling of Kerry's virtue in the act of throwing away the awards he received in protest of a war in which he was an Officer in the service of his Country is a perfect example of liberace disdain for honor, any way you want to twist it. Look where Kerry is, now-in a lib administration.
The Clinton experience harbors a treasure trove of examples for both BJ and Hil of the besmirchment of honor, as well, but it would be more expedient for you to google those up for yourself, Bro. ;)
So, now we're down from 'we' don't value honor to the 'liberaces' don't value honor - or, at least, 'some liberaces' don't value honor - or some politicians who appear to show disdain for honor are, unlike the 'good old days', either reflective of their affiliated political party's or our society's ills in their entirety. :confused:
Bill Ayers' POV resonates with some, not so much to many others.
I've known a number of vets who felt the same way as JFK - they aren't politically minded or opportunists, though, and just moved on with their lives and pretty much kept their views to themselves unless discussing why they felt the way they did with other vets. Not all of them were 'liberaces' although some were.
I've also known many 'liberaces' in my time, many of them were vets and none of them viewed 'honor' as anything but a noteworthy trait to be fostered and valued. But perhaps I've lived an idyllic life and just blinded to the 'truth as Matthew Brady sees it'.
Ever watch someone without honor in the presence of someone who recognizably exhibits it among a group? I see it all the time and the impact is telling.
Ever review the list of recipients of the Congressional Gold Medal or MOH? Even when we fail to duly recognize high honor, it appears we still seek to correct that in due time.
Do you think the likes of a Daniel Inouye (RIP) or Bob Kerry do not value honor?
Such "everyone, everybody, all" statements regarding matters like this one seems - as defined here - more along the lines of 'liberace' than conservative commentary. Or is there, in the realm of 'gotcha' politics, a difference?
As to the original topic, two adults, a father and his daughter, broke the law.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Such "everyone, everybody, all" statements regarding matters like this one seems - as defined here - more along the lines of 'liberace' than conservative commentary. Or is there, in the realm of 'gotcha' politics, a difference?
Richard :munchin
The realm of "gotcha" politics is inhabitated by libs and their minions, the mainstream media.
Gentlemen... We've taken quite a journey off from the original topic. (Thanks to Dozer for trying to refocus).
I'm rather disappointed in many of the comments and the apparent tone of the off-topic (but relevant) comments. It seems that one is disappointed at the direction this country is going (I agree), while many seem only interested in glorifying the foibles of the past. This country is not perfect in past, present, and I dare say future any more than the rest of us are!
Maybe we learn from our mistakes and concentrate on making things better moving forward. Ok?
P.s. I realize we must know our history in order to move forward, but to dwell so much on the negative aspects while ignoring all of the positive aspects is counter productive at best...
mark46th
04-09-2013, 11:10
Crap. My bad.
Trapper John
04-09-2013, 11:16
oh goodie, a new label to track and this one appears to not only denigrate a way of thinking but now includes disdain for piano players.
Good one Dozer:D I told ya' all (Post #13) this thread was going to take us down the rabbit hole. And here we are Cheshire cat and all :eek:
Dozer523
04-09-2013, 14:05
C'mon, Dozer; Richard. I laid that one up for you like a fried egg. :D
oh,oh. . . Banjos.
Richard, don't turn your back to him (pink ):D
GratefulCitizen
04-09-2013, 19:36
oh goodie, a new label to track and this one appears to not only denigrate a way of thinking but now includes disdain for piano players.
Pianist envy?
:D
Dozer523
04-09-2013, 20:43
Pianist envy?
:D:D
Not me, Baby. ;) I play the sax. :cool:
Here's a good example of lib honor:
Here's another.
Congressman honors fallen Hayward Green Beret
ContraCostaTimes, 10 Apr 2013
Special Forces Sgt. 1st Class James Grissom, of Hayward, was honored on the U.S. House floor Tuesday by Congressman Eric Swalwell.
Grissom, a 1999 graduate of Mount Eden High School in Hayward, died March 21 of wounds suffered from small-arms fire in Afghanistan.
The Green Beret received several medals, including the Bronze Star and the NATO Medal, Swalwell said.
"His work as a soldier illustrates brightly the heroism of the service members in our military and their dedication to our country," the congressman said. "I am forever grateful for Sgt. Grissom's sacrifice and service."
Swalwell also praised Grissom for being an organ donor. "Even after Sgt. Grissom passed away, his service to others continued," he said.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/rss/ci_22990156?source=rss
That, sir, is a misrepresentation and an insult. And no, my friend, I do not identify my friends by color unless it's to reinforce my argument that it is, in fact, a non-issue.
PatHold the phone.
Based upon your own personal experiences, you opine that blacks were better off in an era where they had shorter life expectancies, fewer economic opportunities and housing options, and less political power, as well as other obstacles. You prefer a time in America's past in which there were fewer blacks, they lived shorter lives, and they had fewer opportunities for economic, social, educational, and geographic mobility. Yet, you take umbrage when asked about your views about racial difference by what you yourself have posted in this thread. Really.
If, as you aver, race is a "non issue" then why did you identify the friend by color FIRST? How does your friend's race reinforce the arguments that you're attempting to make in this thread? You know a black guy who agrees with you so that validates your controversial POV that blacks were better off then than they are now? Is it your position that one's race alone makes one a SME on the experiences and issues that one's race faces? Or does that only apply to those of a different race who agree with you?
_______________________________________
* And if one asks "Who is William Dunning?" then one makes at least two points for me. First, if Columbia University can survive that guy, then it can survive some of the controversial eggheads currently on its payroll. Second, if one is unfamiliar with Dunning's impact upon Americans' understanding of their past, one might want to think twice about the assumption that "revisionist" historiography is a bad thing.
The contributions of some to this thread have made it crystal clear that if you have a problem with a guy fornicating with his flesh-and-blood daughter you're a racist.
Glad you guys were able to clear that up.
Trapper John
04-11-2013, 18:32
The contributions of some to this thread have made it crystal clear that if you have a problem with a guy fornicating with his flesh-and-blood daughter you're a racist.
Glad you guys were able to clear that up.
Glad you said that Dusty. I was really scratchin' my head over that - just how the hell did we get here from there - oh yeah, we went down the rabbit hole:rolleyes:
One thing one has to admire about libs and their apologists-theyr'e stubborn. Even when it's as obvious as the sun that they're dead wrong, they keep on posing their ridiculous arguments.
Conservative: A guy shouldn't screw his own daughter.
Liberace: Why did you blowtorch all those blacks and commit genocide on the indigenous peoples of the Country?
What a freaking headache for a man in his right mind.
Dusty....You nailed it here...every difficult to defend Lib discussion leads to racism....regardleass of the subject.
The default position of Liberal comfort.....I love it, since they don't even know their own parties complicity...
btw, from now on ALL GLTG whatever's are Liberace's....perfect.
Based upon your own personal experiences, you opine that blacks were better off in an era where they had shorter life expectancies, fewer economic opportunities and housing options, and less political power, as well as other obstacles.
Are you misreading me on purpose? I’m talking about “relative to now” things such as “morality” and “family values” were better for most Americans (I should not have said all) in the ‘50s. (BTW, were you living back then? Or, do you only learn things from books and not those that lived it?) Economic opportunities were improving for all, though not at the same rate. I also said that a child my age at that time would (if honest) agree with me. The odds are high that his children and grandchildren entered the world fatherless. Not because they were raised poorly, they were not. It was because the government got involved in raising their children. If you disagree, then how do we get to a 70% fatherless rate between then and now?
If, as you aver, race is a "non issue" then why did you identify the friend by color FIRST? How does your friend's race reinforce the arguments that you're attempting to make in this thread?
Had you read with your academic glasses on you would have noticed I was pointing out an example of “self segregation”! He and I became friends due to our common interest in Akita dogs and “discriminated” against owners of dogs with floppy ears.
You know a black guy who agrees with you so that validates your controversial POV that blacks were better off then than they are now? Is it your position that one's race alone makes one a SME on the experiences and issues that one's race faces? Or does that only apply to those of a different race who agree with you?
I didn’t say he agreed with me. It’s not a subject that ever came up. We talked about dogs, our children in High School, and sports cars. And, if I recall correctly, we discussed the weather once or twice.
You prefer a time in America's past in which there were fewer blacks, they lived shorter lives, and they had fewer opportunities for economic, social, educational, and geographic mobility. Yet, you take umbrage when asked about your views about racial difference by what you yourself have posted in this thread. Really.
This, again, is an insult and unsupported. This thread is about “moral values” and “family values”. That is what I was addressing.
Pat
The contributions of some to this thread have made it crystal clear that if you have a problem with a guy fornicating with his flesh-and-blood daughter you're a racist.
Glad you guys were able to clear that up.
If that's the conclusion you've reached after reading through this thread, then the last sentence in post #51 may have some merit after all.
Richard :munchin
Trapper John
04-11-2013, 19:55
If that's the conclusion you've reached after reading through this thread, then the last sentence in post #51 may have some merit after all.
Richard :munchin
Richard- there's no resurrecting this thread IMO. Not even you (or MR2 for his effort too) can do that I'm afraid.
Sometimes we can get so far down the rabbit hole there's no way back.
Oh wait, this was the "Slippery Slope" thread. My bad. Never mind:rolleyes:
If that's the conclusion you've reached after reading through this thread, then the last sentence in post #51 may have some merit after all.
Richard :munchin
Never a doubt in my military mind, Richard.
Gentlemen... it seems we have evolved from hating America to calling everything racist. I guess we're near the bottom of that rabbit hole. What will we find when we get there? I suspect a hand basket.
And the rabbit done died...
Sometimes we can get so far down the rabbit hole there's no way back.
You highlight a cogent point, sir. Here we are, marriage now describes a legal bond between two same sex individuals. Our own president has declared that his views, as an adult male holding the highest position in the land, have 'evolved'.
The 2nd amendment doesn't mean what it did. Citizens have no need for 'military weaponry', although most here know that an AR-15 is not a military weapon.
Meanwhile, educated men are debating the morality/legality/ethics of a male putting his &$^% in his own offspring.
Some think its OK, they're both grown, they are responsible for their own actions. I ask; by giving them a pass, are we not condoning their behavior? Are we not saying that its OK to father a child, regardless of sex, and then have sex with that person once they are an adult?
If you take that stance, then why would it not be OK to do it before they are an adult? Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry each other? Where does it end? Can a man marry 2 boys and a girl as long as he promises not to reproduce?
There in lies the rub, and the line between progressives and conservatives. Progressives look at the past and think "look at how far we've come. Men can marry men and women can marry women". Aren't we evolved!
Conservatives look at the future and the past and think "if we as a society, agree to accept a union between a man and a man as a marriage, then tomorrow we will agree to something else that disgusts us today". Conservatives understand that the natural order is toward entropy, so they hold tightly to what 'is'. Knowing that all that it takes to get to further decay is to let society take its own course.
I ask - by overlooking this behavior, how are we changing the world? For better or for worse?
I assert that this discussion exactly demonstrates Trapper John's statement, there is no way back. Do we really want a world where gender is erased? Will a genderless United States be the last bastion of freedom that it is today?
The world today looks so much like the world described in 1984, and the actions of our elected officials seem to invite what happened in Atlas Shrugged. I don't like what I see, it doesn't have to be this way.
The world today looks so much like the world described in 1984, and the actions of our elected officials seem to invite what happened in Atlas Shrugged. I don't like what I see, it doesn't have to be this way.
A very well thought out post, I too do not like what I see and agree that it does not have to be this way. That being said I have no idea as to how we turn the direction of this country around, I meet and hear from more people that feel the way that we do but they must not all vote. I wish I knew the answer.
The world today looks so much like the world described in 1984, and the actions of our elected officials seem to invite what happened in Atlas Shrugged.
I think you need to reread both books (even if only the Cliff or Sparks Notes summaries and analyses) - as with many things, there are some vague similarities between those works of fiction and society as it exits in America today, but on the whole, I wholly disagree.
Richard :munchin
Are you misreading me on purpose? I’m talking about “relative to now” things such as “morality” and “family values” were better for most Americans (I should not have said all) in the ‘50s. (BTW, were you living back then? Or, do you only learn things from books and not those that lived it?) Economic opportunities were improving for all, though not at the same rate. I also said that a child my age at that time would (if honest) agree with me. The odds are high that his children and grandchildren entered the world fatherless. Not because they were raised poorly, they were not. It was because the government got involved in raising their children. If you disagree, then how do we get to a 70% fatherless rate between then and now?
Had you read with your academic glasses on you would have noticed I was pointing out an example of “self segregation”! He and I became friends due to our common interest in Akita dogs and “discriminated” against owners of dogs with floppy ears.
I didn’t say he agreed with me. It’s not a subject that ever came up. We talked about dogs, our children in High School, and sports cars. And, if I recall correctly, we discussed the weather once or twice.
This, again, is an insult and unsupported. This thread is about “moral values” and “family values”. That is what I was addressing.
Pat Reread your own posts in this thread. You are trying to have it both ways.
For example, you want to talk about "moral values" and yet you (paradoxically) romanticize and rationalize public policies based upon anachronistic views of racial differences. Simultaneously, you also make a morally relativistic argument about the impact of segregation upon whites in comparison to blacks. Here is what you wrote: Perspective, amigo. Do you not think that we felt just as segregated as they? If I had to pee, I had to look at the signs, too. And, if I was thirsty? Plus, at school, we also had "girl's" and "boy's" drinking fountains. It was frustrating for us little ones as well. Especially when we couldn't read, yet. :D
In other words, Jim Crow America was as difficult for you and your family anyone else ("we felt just as segregated as they"). Segregation policies were a minor inconvenience ("frustrating") of everyday life that one could easily overcome with education. It was, according to you, a matter of "perspective." (If you really think segregation was merely about access to facilities such as bathrooms, seats in theaters and on buses, and that Jim Crow policies were "imposed" by governments rather than people in government, I suppose we're either looking at books in different sections of the library or the comedian Louis C.K. owes you money.)
You want to present your interpretation of history as sustainable but your arguments are centered around personal anecdotes and two whole autobiographies by two guys who came of age during the 1950s. Who, as it happens, share some of your political POVs.
Guys, read the biographies of Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell. They were black and grew up in that era. You might learn things like the "sitting at the back of the bus" law was instituted by the local government because private bus companies didn't require it. Government imposed it.
Pat As you yourself pointed out, you're as qualified to talk about America's past as any academic, so why not recommend the autobiographies of any of their contemporaries who have different political POVs -- guys like Harry Belafonte, Bill Russell, and the late James Baldwin come to mind? Why not point to studies of Jim Crow America by historians such as Leon Litwack or Steven Hahn? Why not point to works on blacks, such as Sister Rosetta Tharpe who lived through Jim Crow America to see if corporate America had as little to do with segregation as you assert?
Parenthetically, you've twice suggested that I participate in the exchange of family history/personal experiences. However, I am pretty sure you'd not much care for how the table talk in my family valued POVs such as the ones you're offering in this thread. Call it a hunch.
An additional point. Your cherry picking of metrics like fathers in household is ironic given the topic of this thread--it also overlooks the role of the extended family in the African American experience in favor of a POV that privileges a different set of historical experiences, social practices, and cultural sensibilities. While I'm known to rant on Twitter about how America would be a better place if people were more like me when I'm standing in line at Starbucks, I am somewhat sure that such a mindset is not helpful when it comes to trying to understand people in their own terms. YMMV.
A final point--in the form of a rhetorical question. Why is it that some members of the American political right decry the role of the contemporary federal and state governments in the lives of black families but have little to say about the ways the Framers enabled federal and state governments, as well as the people whose interests those governments served, to play an even greater role in the everyday lives of blacks in America? Oh, that's right. That was different. They were using the Bible as a reference point--unlike the morally misguided liberals of America today. <<LINK (http://api.ning.com/files/MOWSOkg48v-XEwy0FY*hZPq*VWhUce7jw8qHcOVWSLAFYZBrjS9nNAO1vUY0d 4sZdloReGmfhkxFcuLrJbOe-i3RAVicqwdU/VirginianLuxuriesPainting.jpg)>>)
Trapper John
04-16-2013, 09:42
I find it very interesting that we start with the issue of a Professor stumping his daughter and we are, at this juncture anyway, discussing the Jim Crow era and segregation. As I have said before, we have gone down the rabbit hole here and incidentally a similar trend is emerging in the "Philadelphia Abortion Doctor..." thread. I don't find this surprising so much as curious. IMO, what we are grappling with is moral relativism with a great deal of angst for the loss of a simpler time.
So in advance, please forgive the length of this post and indulge me in a mental experiment (scientists like to do this :D) that I think will be enlightening and let's travel back to a much simpler time - prior to the appearance of humans on the planet.
The emergence of life and its evolution into diverse species was and still is governed by natural law. Species survived and thrived for millions of years because they were adaptable to their changing environment. Failure to do so resulted in extinctions. In this natural progression, one species evolved that could think and reason - humans. Humans began to think about things, we wondered about the natural world around us and were compelled to explain it.
We organized into societies for survival (probably initiated by some dude with a beret, rolex watch, star sapphire ring, and a demo knife :D). Primitive societies invoked the concept of gods to explain the natural world that they could not understand. As knowledge advanced and societies became more complex we learned that gods did not control the rising of the sun or the appearance of rain in the sky, yet our need to explain our being and to define natural law to provide order to the more complex societies was an imperative to our survival as a species. Thus, we invented the concept of God to embody all the natural laws that we could not explain and to provide a moral guidepost for society. The relativistic notion of Good and Evil simply did not exist prior to appearance of man. Prior to the existence of man there was only the laws of nature.
Our intellect and our ability to reason are our evolutionary advantage but they sometimes are at odds with one another. As our knowledge of the natural world increases and our technology advances to the point that we can do things and know things that were inconceivable a generation before - our ability to reason, to decide what is right and what is wrong, becomes exponentially more challenging. Therefore, we create secular law to reflect natural law, or God's law, to control complex society within a moral framework. This is essential for our survival and we must adapt or die. But this is becoming increasingly more challenging too.
In the not too distant future, probably in one or two generations, we will actually create life; we will merge biology and mechanics and artificial intelligence; and create the first artificial being. The moral and legal ramifications of that are almost unfathomable. But, we will have to deal with it - adapt or die.
I for one am optimistic. We humans, in my view, are the corporal embodiment of God. We will continue to struggle, adapt, and evolve - our natural history suggests that we will. Future generations will look back on us with sympathy and understanding as they too wrestle with the moral dilemmas of their day with longing for such a simpler time.
To quote Richard: and so it goes :munchin
In the not too distant future, probably in one or two generations, we will actually create life; we will merge biology and mechanics and artificial intelligence; and create the first artificial being. :munchin
Will she be black? :D
Trapper John
04-16-2013, 09:56
Will she be black? :D
LOLROF :D Dusty, Brother, I just love your humor - reduces complex issues to just a few words :lifter
Dozer523
04-16-2013, 10:15
Will she be black? :D
Won't matter. I'm sure you will accept and love her totally and unconditionally.
The Reaper
04-16-2013, 17:08
Won't matter. I'm sure you will accept and love her totally and unconditionally.
I don't know, I saw that episode of Star Trek, and it didn't go really well.
TR
FWIW - I cannot see Western society allowing such an act to be 'decriminalized' as the thread's title would indicate.
Richard :munchin
http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=411999&postcount=69
We have kicked the abnormal sexual behaviors topic around in at least 4 threads, most of would like to believe these behaviors would not be normalized/de-crimialized.
Back then this thread began, only 9 or the 50 states (Post #53 (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=499846&postcount=53)) allowed same sex marriage, now it 19 out of 50. The 19 equate to 8 by Court Decision, 8 by State Legislature and 3 by popular vote.
Leaving only 31 states that ban same sex marriage.......and 9 states have had their bans overturned by the judiciary.
And the hits from the Western Society court system keep on coming, and perversions are becoming.......normal behavior in the eyes of the court.
The latest from Australia.......
A judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings.
Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.
He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.
"A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now 'available', not having [a] sexual partner," the judge said.
"If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you'd invariably have, they would say it's unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10958728/Australian-judge-says-incest-may-no-longer-be-a-taboo.html
The line in the sand keeps getting drawn closer and closer........................
Limousine Liberals only talk about lines, they don't actually draw them.
Overtons Window won't work for them if they "draw a line". A year in, and the Limousine crowd inches the window a little more left because nobody notices if you only move it a tiny bit.
...besides, what exactly "is" morality anymore? Morality is clearly an aberrant behavioral trait.