Critical thinking and political matters.

I know you guys are probably going to jump at me for this comment, but Americans aren't exactly known for their tolerance...

We used to be; the proof is in all the progress we have made during the past 50 years.

Isn't it the other way around? We used to not be. But we have made progress.

Some quotes re: tolerance

“The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.” –Aristotle

“The highest result of education is tolerance.” – Helen Keller, Optimism (1903)

“Laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population.” – Albert Einstein

“The love of democracy is that of equality.” – Charles de Montesquieu

“You can protect your liberties in this world only by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can be free only if I am free.” – Clarence Darrow

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Actually, it is a little of each. Until WWII, there was little to no tolerance of many groups. When people mixed together in barracks and defense plants, things began to change.

Tolerance was a bit better in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement but the state of public discourse and courtesy has slid downward. There has been a return to intolerance but it is of a different kind.

Part of the problem may be that the major parties were more alike during the '60 presidential election. They grew apart a bit during the 70s and then came closer to each other again in recent years while the populace has grown more conservative and more intolerant of liberals.

But we are now going full circle back to our intolerance. In our early history, even the Irish and Italians were discriminated against. That was followed by blacks with the KKK lynchings, and discrimination against women on many levels. We then saw what was termed "the yellow peril" as more Chinese came to our shores. Most of us know what happened to the Japanese from the early 20th century into WWII, and even after. In those periods, all ads, tv commentators, newscasters, all who worked in the media (except those minorities who ran their own newspapers) were white. I don't remember exactly when, but a few decades after WWII, we started to see more minority faces in the media and in ads. Interracial marriages became more common, and people stopped using words like nigger, spic, kike, wetback, Chink, and Jap were only used by bigoted or ignorant folks.

I've seen the progress based on our family experiences; most of our children are married to other races, and includes Dutch, English, German, Italian, Polynesian, Hispanic, black, and many Chinese. When we were children, we didn't even socialize with the Chinese kids.

My brother even served as mayor of his town, and served two terms on the state legislature.

I believe that's progress.

...and now you have a black president.

The history of the West over the last few hundred years is expansion of franchisement. More people are beneficiaries of the rights described in the Constitution now than in the past.

Cynicism is hope... just hope burdened by despair. Every generation of Americans has its own struggle to keep the vision of the free society alive. Is our lot worse? Better? Not sure what difference that makes.

Thanks Intrepid! I was thinking ML King, Jr. Faith in ourselves.

And I do understand fearing for innocent people. What do we do about that?

I do not criticize our president because he's black. I criticize what he has done by sloppy spending of money to bail out banks while forgetting main street, continuing and expanding the war in Afghanistan (we are not the solution), and approving a universal health care system that ignores cost savings. Obama also included penalizing small companies $2,500 if they fail to provide health insurance. Many will pay the $2,500 and opt out of providing health insurance and make the government/taxpayer pick up the tab as our deficit grows.

Although Obama has kept most of the promises he made during his campaign, what I listed above are the important ones that he failed at.

did you just completely change the topic?

I wasn't inferring that you criticize him at all. I was pointing more to the renewed tolerance of the U.S. for electing him. I never expected to see a black president in the U.S. during my lifetime.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, and the change of subject. That is never my intent, and offer my apologies.

The World Trade Center is to Christianity what Mecca is to Islam?

In that case, I see your point.

Did they ring the church bells from the WTC every Sunday for "christian" prayers? Or were christians from around the world required to visit the WTC at least once in their lifetime?

The land could still be considered sacred is all he's saying, not that the traditions to honor that sacred land would be the same culture to culture.

We're certainly better off as a society, but that's only because of our laws. The discrimination that takes place now, for the most part, is more subtle since law enforcement threatens repercussions. The system forces people to be civil no matter if they like it or not (and, of course, some people do their dandiest to bypass it). If you were to ask me if we, as a species, are morally wiser now, and that if the laws were removed, would our generation be more tolerant towards others, the answer would be no.

I don't think we've changed, from a moral standpoint, at all - I think we're just better kept in check now.

But maybe I'm wrong!

Oh, and sacredness is not exclusive to things religious. One can say something is sacred and simply mean that it is regarded with reverence.

I am sure that the people who want to build the mosque there have taken that risk into account. Some people are willing to take a risk to make a point. Let me make an analogy:

When the two black students, Vivian Malone and James H. Hood, began to attend The university of Alabama in '63, they were assuming enormous risk. The governor of the state, along with every other bigot in the state, opposed their lawful entry. Should they not have attended that school?

Since 9/11 many Muslims, regardless of their intent to build on Ground Zero, have had to face a lot of discrimination and deal with a lot of profiling. Ken seems preoccupied with the building of this mosque as a symbol of defiance, and i think that there is an element of defiance involved. But it seems to me, that if the members of this church are rebelling against anything, it is against the bigotry that aims to make second-class citizens out of the members of their faith. If the mosque should serve any purpose aside from the place of worship it is built to be, if it is to serve as a political symbol, it is as a justification of its members' equal status in this country.

i think it is pretty naive to deny the political intent of the public opponents of the mosque, fear-mongering is a popular political maneuver because it is both easy and reliable, sadly. But if people like Ken want to stand in the door, then i think it's just time to send in the National Guard.

PS:


While i appreciate the generous spirit behind this attempt to take some of the heat off of Ken, with whom i know you share some basic philosophical principles, i don't think that your rephrasing is a true reflection of Kennethamy's past statements. i do not think that he is concerned for the safety of the people that want to build the church, or any other innocent bystanders in the area. Remember, he has been consistently characterizing the builders of the mosque as the aggressors. His intent, or the intent of the people he seeks to justify, is to make those Muslims shut up and go away.

He was perfectly happy to let the fallacious associate of Islam with terrorism stand, so long as it wasn't challenged. Since objections have come up here, he hasn't so much retreated from his position as obfuscated the content and motives behind his earlier statements. He began this thread, not as a debate about the value or political resonance of this prospective build, but rather as a faux-critical commentary on how the "Left", specifically President Obama, must be either confused or lying in their defense of it.

PPS: I wonder if any of the people involved in trying to build the mosque near Ground Zero are in any way associated with the innocent Muslims that were killed in the Twin Towers attack? (There were 23 reported innocent Muslims killed there, not many in terms of quantity [if someone wanted to make that rather objectionable objection] but it's an accurate reflection of the number of American Muslims [about .6 percent of the population.]) If they had wanted to erect a monument to memorialize those people, would the arguments of the Right still manage to sound so self-righteous?

I, personally, would have still attended. However, don't think for a moment I wouldn't have come armed.

Also, understood regarding kennethamy. I didn't read all of his posts, but it just seemed like he didn't mean what you guys thought he meant from the posts I did read.

i hear you, but if those two drastically outnumbered youths had come to the school with shotguns i don't think they would have lasted too long. And it probably wouldn't have helped make the point that they sought.