Acceptable Bigotry?

[leatha_g 4]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Take General Pace’s comments about homosexuality. His criticism of homosexual behavior (and adultery) is entirely consistent with the tenets of orthodox Christianity. They were merely an expression of his personal beliefs, and have had no impact on the discharge of his official duties.

He expects to have troops under him taking orders that put their lifes in jeparty, while he insults many of them.

I wish all the Gays would quit the US Military and then BuSh and his generals would beg for them to come back, because without the Gays this military would break.

If he wants to express his personal beliefs, let him take his uniform off and say something as Mr. Peter Page. Who? That's right, no one knows who Peter Page is and no one would listen. No news story.

[Lap_dancer 8]

Acceptable bigotry?

By Carol Platt Liebau

Monday, March 19, 2007

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/Column.aspx?ContentGuid=091d10f6-27bb-4635-8c60-a709b2ab12e5

Two major news stories last week had unsettling implications for the status of religion – and freedom of conscience – in the United States. First, a USA Today poll reported that while 94% of Americans said they would vote for a qualified presidential nominee who was black – and 88% said they would vote for a woman – only 72% would vote for a Mormon. Only days later, General Peter Pace ignited a firestorm by commenting that homosexual behavior – like adultery – is immoral.

What was, perhaps, most disheartening about the USA Today poll was the silence of those who are usually most likely to publicize real or perceived instances of bigotry. It’s not hard to imagine how the “civil rights” lobby or the feminists would have reacted had, say, blacks or women been shown to bear the brunt of whatever prejudice still exists in America. But sadly, liberals in general – who still sympathize with those who harbored Communist sympathies half a century ago – had scant time to denounce unreasoned religious discrimination against a group of loyal, upstanding Americans.

As Hugh Hewitt – author of the new book “A Mormon in the White House?: Ten Things Every American Should Know About Mitt Romney” – has noted, the stigma that attaches to displays of racism and sexism is not as pronounced when it comes to manifestations of religious bigotry. In fact, it seems that anti-religious animus is the one remaining acceptable prejudice in America.

Take General Pace’s comments about homosexuality. His criticism of homosexual behavior (and adultery) is entirely consistent with the tenets of orthodox Christianity. They were merely an expression of his personal beliefs, and have had no impact on the discharge of his official duties. Yet gay activists had no compunction about denouncing him and demanding his resignation, even as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hastened to clarify that they found nothing morally dubious about gay behavior.

Taken together, the reported prejudice against Mormons and the outcry over General Pace’s words suggest an unfortunate trend toward penalizing otherwise law-abiding Americans for their personal exercise of religious conscience. After all, if a Mormon runs for President espousing the same political platform as a Protestant, Catholic or Jew might and expresses support America’s political-religious traditions – or if an orthodox Christian general is willing to abide by the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that’s enshrined in law even if he disagrees with it – of what public relevance are the fine points of their personal theologies?

The apparent willingness to denounce public figures’ personal religious convictions – and then support or oppose them politically on that basis – is pernicious. That very old and universal human temptation is precisely what the Founding Fathers were attempting to suppress when they made unconstitutional the practice of administering religious tests for public office. But when personal opposition to gay behavior becomes a firing offense, or a candidate’s private religious beliefs are deemed render him unfit for public office per se, political discourse is trending dangerously close to that line.

America may well be proud of the strides it has taken to ensure that neither sex nor skin color constitutes a barrier to success in the United States. Certainly, much of the impetus for greater inclusiveness has been inspired by the Judeo-Christian principles that have animated so much of American life. It would be ironic – and sad – if, having come so far in so many areas, religion became the one area where bigotry and discrimination remained socially acceptable.

******************************************************

I'm not a Mitt Romney supporter, btw, but I do tend to see the truth in this article, unfortunately.

By no stretch of the imagination am I voting for anyone because of their ethnicity or religious beliefs. So why does the press feel obligated to tell us about Barack Obama, who is not BLACK but is more MIXED with anglo, African, Indonesian heritage.

Sometimes I think the press perpetuates problems.

Great article. BTW heard a statistic that despite all the roar from Hollywood, "Passion" grossed 4 million in sales the first week the DVD was released. "Touched By An Angel" has been running how long?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

But sadly, liberals in general – who still sympathize with those who harbored Communist sympathies half a century ago – had scant time to denounce unreasoned religious discrimination against a group of loyal, upstanding Americans.

Why don't you quit the BS. If you want to say something about the book about Mitt Romney, why do you have to insult a group of people? I quess McCartyism is still live and doing well in your heart.

Why should the Liberal get involved with conservative Christian infighting.

I didn't hear any Liberals say they would not vote for a Mormom.

I would vote for a Mormom just as quickly as I would vote for Jew, a Roman Catholic, a Protestant, a Budhist or an atheist.

Besides, who ever heard of the book? It is not popular among the Liberals I know.

I love it when conservatives blame Liberals for their own stupidity. We Liberals don't care about crap like that.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

By no stretch of the imagination am I voting for anyone because of their ethnicity or religious beliefs. So why does the press feel obligated to tell us about Barack Obama, who is not BLACK but is more MIXED with anglo, African, Indonesian heritage.

Sometimes I think the press perpetuates problems.

Very few Blacks are Black. Most are mixed with white, American Indian, or a myriad of other groups. It is white people that decide that if you are not all white, you must be Black.

In many states when I was born, if a person had 15 white great-great-grandparents and one Black great-great-grandparant, that person was Black.

In some states, if a person had 7 white great-grandparents and one Black great-grandparant, that person was Black.

And in some states, if a person had 3 white grandparents and one Black grandparant, that person was Black.

I found out about this because in most of the Southern States, it was against the law for a white man to box with a Black man, but the Black man's race would change from state to state depending on which one of the rules that state followed.

So people got into the habit of calling anyone not 100% white as snow: Black.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

BTW heard a statistic that despite all the roar from Hollywood, "Passion" grossed 4 million in sales the first week the DVD was released. "Touched By An Angel" has been running how long?

Are writing about "Passion of the Christ"? That was a snuff film; an excuse to show gratuitous violence and should have been rated XXX. Pornography!!!

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

lol, as I said. I have no interest in Mitt Romney.

I do have an interest in Acceptable Bigotry, however. Why are the articles I'm interested in BS when those you post so all important? Is there a double standard here?

Maybe because I put out better stuff than you?

All kidding aside, I didn't say the article was BS, just the totally non-relevant and inaccurate part about "Liberals still sympathizing with those who harbored Communist sympathies half a century ago". Most of the Liberals alive today were not even around when Senator Joseph McCarthy was trying to destroy Democracy in the USA with his version of "You are either with us or against us".

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

No. That was the true story of Jesus Christ and how terrible it really was for Him on the day He died. Something most people like to forget. It wasn't pretty. You're right. Unfortunately, nothing much has really changed. :eek: He continues to take the lashes even as we speak.

Who is lashing him?

Not a very powerful God, is he?

At least you obviously do not think so.

There was no need for the bloodshed. It was desensitizing and revolting. It didn't highlight the love Jesus had for us.

Tina and I sat in the front row and our popcorn got drenched with blood.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I didn't write the article. For the sake of context, I entered the whole thing. The point is, all bigotry is denounced EXCEPT that of being bigoted against Christianity. I think it's true. I posted an article which I think discusses it well.

Thank you for your interest and your input into my discussion thread. You always have valuable and interesting views. :-)

In the case of the book about Romney, I will go along with your argument (except no one I know, ever heard of the book), and I will say it is wrong to hold a man's religion against him which I already said in a previous post in this thread.

In the case of the General. no one was being bigoted against him, but people complained that they did not want to hear his bigotry.

Even he admitted, that he should not have said it as a General.

Have you ever heard the expression, "You salute the uniform, not the man wearing it"?

By saying what he said as a United States General, it is like saying that the United States says whatever he said. He was speaking for himself (and admitted it later), but when he said it as General Pace, it became a matter of government policy, which it is not and he has no right to make.

And this is not your thread. It is a thread on LBT.

[Victoriana 10]

Bigotry in any form is disgusting. The problem is that bigotry hides itself so easily. eg, I dont hate fat people, but I stare at them because I cant believe that they let themselves go like that, all the while Im technically overweight, but not as obese as they.

It is very hard to have a pure heart, we all have likes and dislikes, one prefers this and another that.

What is called bigotry by one person is not bigotry to another. It could be more like politically correctness (is that bad grammar or what?).

We need each other, our differences is what makes life real. I cant figure out why anyone would have the arrogance to say that what thier opinion is should stand as the best one. We are like light, the more we mix, the better we see. IMHO.:eek: :Banane30:

[Victoriana 10]

Its interesting...the blood. Its what makes demons flee. Its also the most important thing to life. Its more precious than the air we breathe.

If its so valuable, how can anyone hate it? What is so revolting about it.

Have you not ever loved anyone so much that you would do anything to keep them with you? Yes blood is impressive, but not revolting. Impressive indeed.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Time to go to Bed?

[anonemouse 1]

Its interesting...the blood. Its what makes demons flee. Its also the most important thing to life. Its more precious than the air we breathe.

If its so valuable, how can anyone hate it? What is so revolting about it.

Have you not ever loved anyone so much that you would do anything to keep them with you? Yes blood is impressive, but not revolting. Impressive indeed.

Oooo-kay. Interesting.

[Alexandra 55]

I didn't write the article. For the sake of context, I entered the whole thing. The point is, all bigotry is denounced EXCEPT that of being bigoted against Christianity. I think it's true. I posted an article which I think discusses it well.

Yeah, well, at this point no Muslims have run for national office -- can you imagine that picture?

Insofar as 28% of people saying they wouldn't vote for a Mormon, I'm hard-pressed to call that "bigotry." Personally, I couldn't vote for any ordained and currently active cleric because I'd have serious doubts as to his or her first allegiance. Aside from that, though, I don't care what someone's religious affiliation is as long as they keep it where it belongs--far away from policy decisions.

But the point in the article is well taken, and a terrific argument for removing ALL discussion of religious adherence from the public discourse. People's religious affiliation is simply.not.relevant unless they have made it a public issue (such as those candidates pandering to some specific religious bloc, or declaring themselves to be born again as though that somehow is a credential for public office).

Let's talk about the ISSUES, policy, and the public welfare. NOT what people do at church or in their personal lives.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Yeah, well, at this point no Muslims have run for national office -- can you imagine that picture?

Insofar as 28% of people saying they wouldn't vote for a Mormon, I'm hard-pressed to call that "bigotry." Personally, I couldn't vote for any ordained and currently active cleric because I'd have serious doubts as to his or her first allegiance. Aside from that, though, I don't care what someone's religious affiliation is as long as they keep it where it belongs--far away from policy decisions.

But the point in the article is well taken, and a terrific argument for removing ALL discussion of religious adherence from the public discourse. People's religious affiliation is simply.not.relevant unless they have made it a public issue (such as those candidates pandering to some specific religious bloc, or declaring themselves to be born again as though that somehow is a credential for public office).

Let's talk about the ISSUES, policy, and the public welfare. NOT what people do at church or in their personal lives.

But it is the Christians who, though they are the ones complaining in the thread opening article, refuse to vote for someone unless they meet their religious standards. They sometimes hide behind the word "character" but they mean religious standards.

That's is why the part about book about Romney is a "red Herron". Liberals don't care about that issue and I doubt would read that book. It is the conservatives who read it and then complain about its implications.