The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Lola wrote:

Quote:
If the word Republican only denoted a method of sex, ...

Really, Lash. You are not this dense. Others on this thread, I know they probably can't do any better.......but surely you can step back for a second and see that a couple of women doing the maple syrup thing is not about sex. Homosexual may have the word sex in it. But so does heterosexual.

Please. It's about the moralists trying to have it their way. And I hope they keep pushing because Bush's ratings are already low and I'd love to see them go even lower. I can't wait to see that smug grin wiped off his silly face.

No, I'm not dense, but I'm beginning to wonder about others...

The word homosexual denotes how, or with whom someone has sex.

homosexual-- Of, or having sexual desire for persons of the same sex.
heterosexual-- Of, or having desire for persons of the opposite sex.

One, I have to explain relatively early. One, I do not.

0 Replies

What thought provoking questions were raised by having an interracial cast? Goodness. "How come we don't know any black people, Mommy?" "How come you won't let me play with my friend Tommy [who is black], Daddy?" This was 1969. MLK was assassinated the year before. All was not sweetness and light in the American racial landscape.

Meanwhile, they didn't leave it at just the cast. Remember "It's Not Easy Being Green?" There are things like this on the website where I got the timeline:

Quote:

MOMMY, WHY IS THAT BOY'S SKIN BROWN?
Kids are usually open and curious. This article will provide helpful tips on how to respond to this kind of question, and more.
http://www.ctw.org/sb?ID=22580

A lot of other stuff -- trying to keep it simple since we have indeed come a long way in the discussion. Will say that while I certainly would prefer that all children are allowed to see the Buster episode, of course, I am not forcing anything on anyone. People may choose not to watch. And anyone who would object has several chances to decide they don't want their kids to watch this episode, starting with the entire premise of the show and going through the 30 seconds that summarize what the show will be about at the very beginning.

I am not accusing you of being prejudiced. I was pointing out a logical error. If there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, your argument doesn't work. If there were people who believed in their heart of hearts that miscegenation was wrong, and they were heartily offended by Sesame Street showing people of all races living together in harmony in 1969, I don't think their offense should have been honored by taking Sesame Street off the air.

Same here.

0 Replies

Way behind, still, I see... Embarrassed

blatham wrote:

Quote:
If it helps you to understand it, yes, I think it was inappropriate to fight the good fight of interracial marriage in the minds of a 3 year olds as well. Teach yours what appropriate, but don't you dare to presume that you have a right to overrule the majority consensus on morality and teach mine your radical views. However right you may be, this approach remains wrong. That is simply not the appropriate venue to battle a moral dilemma that adults can't even agree on. Both sides are equally entitled to their outrage when it's used as such... and therefore the issue can (should?) be able to be avoided by the television station without offending anyone. Choosing not to air the episode is a non position that isn't necessarily indicative of a yay or a nay to the moral dilemma. Choosing to air it is a defacto endorsement.

bill

You've done a great job of narrowing down your notions here. Thanks.

This appears to be your core argument, and I suspect it is that of fox, lash and JW too (outside of whatever anti-homosexuality notions they might or might not hold).

I do not concur. You acknowledge you are led, in order to be consistent, to the proposition that folks in the community ought NOT to present or model that which is aligned with equality principles, such as racial equality, to youngsters if their parents think racism is just fine or if majoritarian ideas think it just fine. This, it seems to me, is clearly a morally indefensible position. Put it into the mouths of South African white supremicists twenty years ago, and that gives it its proper standing.

That said, such a viewpoint can surely lead to folks who disagree operating as activists in the community. That is predictable, in fact. But they sit on the wrong side of the scale both in terms of morals and constitution, so the rest of us will fight 'em until this bigotry falls into the past as well.

But further, we'll fight a government that itself acts immorally and unconstituionally (in principle) in the same manner.

A fundamental question, perhaps the fundamental question that sits here is whether we are to consider that the foundational document of the nation is the constitution and bill of rights, or scripture.

A bit over the top aintcha there, Blatham (though quite moderate compared to Dys's most recent idiotic outburst). At no point did I condone racism in any way shape or form. I suggested that you don't have a right to decide when my child learns some of the uglier facts of life. I'm probably as disgusted by racism as you are but that doesn't mean I want my children taught, rightly or wrongly, about it at 3 or 5 years old if it isn't necessary. Consider the open casket wake example. Some parents will take their 3 year old in to say goodbye and some will shield their 9 year old from it. While we all, presumably, have opinions on when it's appropriate to discuss death, it is none of our business how and when the individual parent decides to do it.

Racism. I was raised in a town so ethnically un-diverse that I didn't know racism existed. In retrospect, I recall one incident of dislike for my black fourth grade teacher (the first black person I had ever seen) from a kid who transferred in from Chicago that could probably be explained by racism. I was out of high school before I ever realized that racism was still an issue. When I learned it was, I was appalled by it. I didn't need to be told to be appalled by such a thing when I was 3 or 5 to know it was wrong when I did see it. Contrary to some of the overly judgmental fools on this site's opinion, my moral compass operates just fine. (Better than most IMHO :wink: )

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I agree, Foxfyre.

I'll apply that to Bill's paragraph here:

Quote:
Continuing with your circular argument; the reader must accept your belief that there's nothing wrong with being homosexual... in order to recognize this problem. It is quite apparent that you are utterly incapable of recognizing the possibility that you are wrong about that. While I respect the conviction, it makes it impossible to have a rational discussion with you about dissenting views. I'm reminded of the opposing sides on abortion. Both sides have valid points but the crazies can only see their side. (Of course a woman should have a right to choose what happens to her body, but that doesn't mean a human life isn't being extinguished.) You have that kind of tunnel vision when addressing this issue.

It works a little better to offer something about why, in fact, there is something wrong with homosexuality rather than just saying it is so. I certainly don't expect you do just accept my belief. Of course I may be wrong about it. Go ahead and convince me. There is something wrong with homosexuality and it is...?

[edit, weird typo]

Round and around and around we go. Soz. I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality. I think there is something wrong when folks who believe their preacher and bible have to face accusations bigotry and hate for doing nothing more than following the same guidelines their parent's parent's parent's parent's did. I further think it's wrong when children's minds are used as the battle ground for solving a moral dilemma. If a child hears one side, odds are pretty good someone's going to fill them in on the other. I think it's completely reasonable to want to defer such disheartening dilemmas for as long as possible. None of this should be difficult for you or anyone else to understand, whether you agree with me or my priorities or not.

0 Replies

You haven't said what you think of Sesame Street. Was that wrong? Should it have been taken off the air because there were a whole lot of people who thought miscegenation was wrong?

I'd like your answer because that affects how I respond to your latest post.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

You haven't said what you think of Sesame Street. Was that wrong? Should it have been taken off the air because there were a whole lot of people who thought miscegenation was wrong?

I'd like your answer because that affects how I respond to your latest post.

I thought I answered that. I don't think it was wrong and I don't see it as a parallel issue, either. The bible doesn't say anything like people of different ethnic backgrounds shouldn't live in peace. Nor do too many preachers (I'm guessing). There is no promotion of anything historically viewed as sin in having an ethnically diverse cast. This cast doesn't raise issues that hit home like Sidney's kiss or parents of the same sex. Sesame street apparently agreed, or there would have been gay inclusions there too, would there? Or, do you think no one thought of it then or in the next 35 years? This isn't the same thing. I understand that you think it is and I understand why. I damn near agree with you that it is right up until I remember to respect other people's views too. Again, I can't explain why anyone believes any directions from the bible, but since I respect and care about so very many people who do, I'm left with little choice but to pay them some respect.

0 Replies

"You and word choice. "Superimpose" -- sigh. Nobody's forcing anyone to watch. Just like nobody forced us to watch the Orthodix Jew episode of "Postcards". Or the Mormon episode (which I just remembered.) In both of those episodes, the families were open, friendly, happy people, who obviously appreciated their faith. It could have led to all kinds of questions from sozlet that might be awkward to answer -- but a) it didn't ("oooh, sledding!") and b) if it did, that would mean she was ready to ask those questions. If she's ready to ask them, I'm ready to answer. That's how parenting goes."

Here is another area where Bill's argument falls down.

I think Christianity/Islam/Judaism etc to be foolish superstitions, with some nuggets of pure diamond in their teachings about morality - sadly, embedded in terrible dross.

There is no way I would want a child of mine deciding to be part of any of them - however, I strongly support their representation on shows like Buster - because they are part of life and reality.

Then we come to Mormonism - now, here is a sub-species of christianity that really makes me see red - I have had a lot of clients suffer severely under what I consider to be their loony beliefs. (And I am happy to delineate some of these situations if you think I am being unnecessarily "down" on the religion)

Do I want a show about Mormons banned from Buster? (They are deviant, in Fox's sense of the word. They are a minority, most people do not share their beliefs. I consider many of their beliefs invidious. And - THEY are actively proselytising - they come to your door trying to make you into one - they are busy baptising all of us, and our ancestors into Mormonism - because they think that is the right thing to do.) Of course not. Mormons are, again, a part of life - and, if a child is ready to discuss religion - wow - go for it!

Would I consider showing mormons as a happy, normal family was "subliminally indoctrinating" a child into mormonism? Of course not - much as I loathe many aspects of the religion - if ONLY Mormon families were shown as happy and normal - THAT would be indoctrination. So - here is a similar example - but of a disapproved of "message" - and, in the context of a show whose reason for being is to embrace diversity, I would embrace the depiction. (As I would embrace a reasonable depiction anywhere on the media - actually, I first learned about Mormonisn from an episode of "Here Come the Brides" - and a fine episode it was). And guess what - I don't see it as any message except that people are different. And - I have no doubt that the show would be reflecting a reality of many very happy and wonderful Mormon families.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

sozobe wrote:
You haven't said what you think of Sesame Street. Was that wrong? Should it have been taken off the air because there were a whole lot of people who thought miscegenation was wrong?

I'd like your answer because that affects how I respond to your latest post.
I thought I answered that. I don't think it was wrong and I don't see it as a parallel issue, either. The bible doesn't say anything like people of different ethnic backgrounds shouldn't live in peace. Nor do too many preachers (I'm guessing). There is no promotion of anything historically viewed as sin in having an ethnically diverse cast. This cast doesn't raise issues that hit home like Sidney's kiss or parents of the same sex. Sesame street apparently agreed, or there would have been gay inclusions there too, would there? Or, do you think no one thought of it then or in the next 35 years? This isn't the same thing. I understand that you think it is and I understand why. I damn near agree with you that it is right up until I remember to respect other people's views too. Again, I can't explain why anyone believes any directions from the bible, but since I respect and care about so very many people who do, I'm left with little choice but to pay them some respect.

Actually, that is wrong. Any number of christian groups have justified their racism from scripture - usually by raising something about the children of Ham, who was cursed or something, and is seen by some christian groups as being the ancestor of black people.

When it came to the civil rights movement, and inter-racial liaisons, christianity was used as much as any other ideology to condemn it as sinful and unnatural.

I understand that this was especially so amongst southern protestant churches - so much so, that, to their credit, the Southern Baptists have apologised.

Here is a black theologian:

African-American theologian James Cone notes that "In the old slavery days, the Church preached that slavery was a divine decree, and it used the Bible as the basis of its authority."{1}

"Not only did Christianity fail to offer the ... [Black] hope of freedom in the world, but the manner in which Christianity was communicated to him tended to degrade him. The ... [Black] was taught that his enslavement was due to the fact that he had been cursed by God. ... Parts of the Bible were carefully selected to prove that God had intended that the...[Black] should be the servant of the white man...."{2}

As a white baby boomer growing up in the South, I experienced segregated schools, restrooms, drinking fountains and beaches. My parents taught and modeled equality, so the injustice I saw saddened me deeply. I was appalled that the Ku Klux Klan used the Bible and the cross in its rituals.

During college, a friend brought an African-American student to a church I attended in North Carolina. The next Sunday, the pastor announced that because of "last week's racial incident" (the attendance of a Black), church leaders had voted to maintain their longstanding policy of racial segregation. Thereafter, any Blacks attending would be handed a note explaining the policy and asking that they not return. I was outraged and left the church. (Postscript: A few years ago I learned that that white church had folded and that an African-American church came to use the same facility. Maybe God has a sense of humor.)....

http://www.probe.org/docs/racism.html

Of course, religious text is infinitely interpretable - the same bible brought us such wonderful campaigners against racism as the Quakers....

0 Replies

My "idiotic outburst', unlike Blatham as he is Canadian ergo more
refined in repartee, was my simple attempt to reach down to the inner child in you that has consistently demonstrated foot stamping, lip lowering and blathering throughout this thread proclaiming consistently "I am right, and by golly it's incumbent on everyone here to know that." I will not refute my idiocy as it has been confrimed by many preceeding your proclimation therefor must be true. In addition of my "idiocy" I am also a liberal of the worst kind, a usual suspect as you like to say, so be kind to the handicapped, the diseased, the lepers among us and let us have our day in the sun in spite of our ignorance. It's the tolerant thing to do.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Actually, that is wrong. Any number of christian groups have justified their racism from scripture - usually by raising something about the children of Ham, who was cursed or something, and is seen by some christian groups as being the ancestor of black people.

When it came to the civil rights movement, and inter-racial liaisons, christianity was used as much as any other ideology to condemn it as sinful and unnatural.

Sure, some groups included their hate in their religion and I'm sure you could probably trace some chapters of the KKK back to a church even today. But I don't think you'll find that racism was one of the standards recognized by the mainstream religious establishments. In my experience; black people tend to be as religious than anyone else. The great Doctor King himself was a reverend, like his dad before him.

Dys, I'll cut you all the slack you want if you stop short of accusing me of mindless hatred like you implied in that idiotic outburst. :wink:

0 Replies

Bill - you are basing a lot of your argument on saying that a lot of christians disapprove of homosexuality.

Lots of christians also disapproved of civil rights - incuding, as far as I can see so far, a majority of white members of many denominations in the south.

NOT fringe groups.

??????????????????

0 Replies

"The 60's non-violent, civil rights movement was the most significant, visionary, faith-inspired, church-driven, biblically-informed movement of the Post-war era, and the overwhelming majority of white, mainline Christians - my "people group" - completely missed it. In the process, we forfeited our golden opportunity to finally do the right thing: to act redemptively, to protect, to join hands, to make restitution, to expose the hypocrisy of the culture, to speak truth to power, to proclaim freedom to the oppressed and hope to the poor, and - in the face of a looming, bloody, race war-- to share in the work of transforming the culture peacefully and for the betterment of us all. More to the point: in the forty years since those landmark laws were passed, more change has occurred in the standard of living of minorities than in the hearts and minds of white Christians.......

........spiritually, it was Judgment Day for the cultural Christianity of this nation, which was found to be heretically hypocritical with regard to its founding principles in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The church - which in those days had a cultural clout it does not enjoy today - failed to take part in what God was doing among the 'least of these', betrayed its own gospel in the process, and was found mostly hiding under the bed when the Remnant marched down the street in front of the sanctuary.....

(heehee) To the degree that the church abdicates its mission to serve as an advocate of the "least of these" it loses its soul and becomes a willing accessory to a culture that dehumanizes. In my lifetime it has too often been those people - supposedly the most concerned with good's triumph over evil - who have been most deeply invested in defending the status quo. Yes, these attitudes are expressed in more subtle tones these days: the way my Christian friends roll their eyes and complain over lunch about the ridiculous burdens of "political correctness," as if the inconvenience of cultural sensitivity in any way bears comparison to the humiliation American minorities have experienced for the past 400 years. But, Jesus taught that the road to breaking the commandments not to kill, or steal, or commit adultery begins with first dehumanizing the other person in our hearts. So, this is how it starts, and the only thing necessary for us to capitulate to that kind of evil again in the future is for us to forget when, how and why we've done it before...."

http://www.kylematthews.com/singdown.htmlhttp://www.kylematthews.com/singdown.html

0 Replies

Deb, who the hell is Kyle Mathews? Laughing

I do a little church bashing here and there myself... but you'll have to do better than that if you want to convince me a significant percentage of churches advocated Racism in 1969. Shocked

I was a one year old, so I can't recollect, and I know times was hard but I don't think it was quite as bad as all that. I can only assume the vast majority of churches were peace promoting establishments. Laughing

0 Replies

Happy to tag in dlowan ;-), she's been doing a great job, including bringing back some arguments I'd forgotten about -- she's right, the Mormon example really fits well.

But want to follow up on my question. Dlowan's been covering the bible/ Christianity aspect of racism/ anti-miscegenation really well, and how there are in fact a lot of parallels.

What I'll add in terms of "Sesame street apparently agreed, or there would have been gay inclusions there too, would there?" is that there are different waves of civil rights, and I think homosexuality is now where racism was then. In that way I think they're equivalent. Before racism it was sexism -- not saying that either of those have completely gone away, but in terms of women not even being able to vote, women not even being able to work in any but a very few positions (nurse, teacher, secretary). Back when women couldn't even vote, talking about blacks voting would have been as huge and impossible of a thing as having a homosexual character on a children's show would be when Sesame Street was breaking the color barrier.

Sesame Street started its integrated show two years after "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner", after the March on Washington, after years of tough, in-the-trenches work on civil rights. "Postcards" (again one little episode vs. a whole series) comes along 12 years after "Philadelphia", several years after "Will and Grace", and after years of tough, in-the-trenches work on gay rights.

I really liked what Foxfyre said about not being able to legislate all of our problems away, that it takes lots of little steps. This is a little step, and I welcome it.

0 Replies

Soz--

Dlowan asked you to "tag in"?

0 Replies

Um, yes?

NO!

I was kidding about the fact that I had to leave for a while, came back and dlowan was making all kinds of good points that I might have made (if I'd thought of them) had I still been around.

Kinda like how Foxfyre took over for you and then Bill took over for Foxfyre.

Joke.

0 Replies

Oh and it wasn't "happy to tag in, dlowan" it was "happy to tag in dlowan", as in handing off to her, I'd thought of "hand off the baton to dlowan" but "tag in" is more like wrestling.

Ya know.

Anyway.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Hee hee!

You're just feeling left out.

<hands PDiddie some sparkly tights>

0 Replies

Actually dear, Blacks were voting before women... just not all of them. I don't think Alice Paul even took a day off between fighting for women's rights and fighting for Negro Rights... which indeed weren't really enforced until 50 or so years later. As I'm sure you know, she was the bomb! I tied the two together and provided a makeshift timeline in a post here, though with a much different agenda. :wink:

0 Replies

The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know