DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on November 03, 2006, 05:13:33 AM
-
With all the hoopla surrounding what Sowell was supposedly saying about "diversity", here's another article on the subject. Let's see how quickly this author is referred to as a racist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIVERSITY ADULATION
There are some ideas so ludicrous and mischievous that only an academic would take them seriously. One of them is diversity. Think about it. Are you for or against diversity? When's the last time you said to yourself, "I'd better have a little more diversity in my life"? What would you think if you heard a Microsoft director tell his fellow board members that the company should have more diversity and manufacture kitchenware, children's clothing and shoes? You'd probably think the director was smoking something illegal.
Our institutions of higher learning take diversity seriously and make it a multimillion-dollar operation. Juilliard School has a director of diversity and inclusion; Massachusetts Institute of Technology has a manager of diversity recruitment; Toledo University, an associate dean for diversity; the universities of Harvard, Texas A&M, California at Berkeley, Virginia and many others boast of officers, deans, vice-presidents and perhaps ministers of diversity.
George Leef, director of the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy in Raleigh, N.C., writes about this in an article titled "Some Questions about Diversity" in the Oct. 5 issue of "Clarion Call." Mr. Leef suggests that only in academia is diversity pursued for its own sake, but there's a problem: Everyone, even if they are the same ethnicity, nationality or religion, is different. Suppose two people are from the same town in Italy. They might differ in many important respects: views on morality, religious and political beliefs, recreation preferences and other characteristics.
Mr. Leef says that some academics see diversity as a requirement for social justice -- to right historical wrongs. The problem here is that if you go back far enough, all groups have suffered some kind of historical wrong. The Irish can point to injustices at the hands of the British, Jews at the hands of Nazis, Chinese at the hands of Indonesians, and Armenians at the hands of the Turks. Of course, black Americans were enslaved, but slavery is a condition that has been with mankind throughout most of history. In fact, long before blacks were enslaved, Europeans were enslaved. The word slavery comes from Slavs, referring to the Slavic people, who were early slaves. White Americans, captured by the Barbary pirates, were enslaved at one time or another. Whites were indentured servants in colonial America. So what should the diversity managers do about these injustices?
When academics call for diversity, they're really talking about racial preferences for particular groups of people, mainly blacks. The last thing they're talking about is intellectual diversity. According to a recent national survey, reported by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni in "Intellectual Diversity," 72 percent of college professors describe themselves as liberal and 15 percent conservative. Liberal professors think their classrooms should be used to promote a political agenda. The University of California recently abandoned a provision on academic freedom that cautioned against using the classroom for propaganda. The president said the regulation was "outdated."
Americans, as taxpayers and benefactors, have been exceedingly generous to our institutions of higher learning. That generosity has been betrayed. Rich Americans, who acquired their wealth through our capitalist system, give billions to universities. Unbeknownst to them, much of that money often goes to faculty members and programs that are openly hostile to donor values. Universities have also failed in their function of the pursuit of academic excellence by having dumbed down classes and granting degrees to students who are just barely literate and computationally incompetent.
What's part of Williams' solution? Benefactors should stop giving money to universities that engage in racist diversity policy. Simply go to the university's website, and if you find offices of diversity, close your pocketbook. There's nothing like the sound of pocketbooks snapping shut to open the closed minds of administrators.
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2006
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/adulation.html
-
With all the hoopla surrounding what Sowell was supposedly saying about "diversity", here's another article on the subject. Let's see how quickly this author is referred to as a racist
You cannot defend your earlier point adequately, so you make a passive-aggressive statement here? Wow. I may have to dig through my old psychology textbook for you.
Now let's read the text.
First of all Walter Williams is African American so there is a little pitfall here that supposedly because he is black he cannot write something racist. Of course that is a crock of shit. Still, I have to get on into the piece to see what I think of it.
OK.
It isn't racist at all. It is just typical backlash victimisation with its typical hatred for the univeristy system. Not racist, just rubbish.
Now toddle off and defend your racist essay. This one is clearly a diversion.
-
First of all Walter Williams is African American so there is a little pitfall here that supposedly because he is black he cannot write something racist. Of course that is a crock of shit....Now toddle off and defend your racist essay. This one is clearly a diversion.
Been there done that. My apologies if my answers were not to your level of satisfaction. And the color of either author's skin has zip to do with anything. So, why the frell you needed to bring it into the equation perhaps tells us more about your mental frame of mind than my need for a psychological assessment
-
And the color of either author's skin has zip to do with anything. So, why the frell you needed to bring it into the equation perhaps tells us more about your mental frame of mind than my need for a psychological assessment
Oh, I agree that it has nothing to do with anything, which I clearly point out in my reply. Just making sure no one else falls for the juvenile attempt at chicanery on the part of the "debate" you offer from this "article."
-
Oh, I agree that it has nothing to do with anything, which I clearly point out in my reply. Just making sure no one else falls for the juvenile attempt at chicanery on the part of the "debate" you offer from this "article."
Care to qualify that accusation? You brought race into this. Who would you be expecting "chicanery" from in order for you to be obligated t prevent such??
-
Quite clearly you. You brought race into this as evidenced by your introductory statement. I, quite clearly, took it out.
As I said, "It [the article] isn't racist at all. It is just typical backlash victimisation with its typical hatred for the univeristy system. Not racist, just rubbish."
-
" It is just typical backlash victimisation with its typical hatred for the univeristy system. Not racist, just rubbish."
Js, do you really believe this? Have you been so captured by the liberalism bent in this nation that you cannot see?
Heck, even the word "Liberal" has changed its meaning lately. PC run amok.
Be bold! Do not succumb to a PC world. Create your own reality. Do not bow to the mainstream, I challenge you. Please.
Think independently. If a term has changed its menaing due ot societal influences, why accept this?
If you truly beleive we are better off, culturally, than, say, 50 years ago when traditional values reigned, then you have truly been captured by the new "liberals".
-
Quite clearly you. You brought race into this as evidenced by your introductory statement. I, quite clearly, took it out. As I said, "It [the article] isn't racist at all. It is just typical backlash victimisation with its typical hatred for the univeristy system. Not racist, just rubbish."
Considering how quickly Sowell's piece was castigated as racist, simply for daring to criticise "diversity", I was curious how quickly Williams' piece would be called racist. At no time did I reference anyone's skin color. That'd be you. And now with the follow-up, I see where the real "chicanery" is coming from, implying that I'M the one looking to make this a racial, when you're the one bring up color of the author's skin, as if that had anything to do with anything.
And your paltry comments that mimick "victimization of the media" when anyone criticises the overt (read; not subtle) bias in the mainscream media or in Academia is starting to wring hollow, I'm afraid. Apparently when anyone dares to criticise a left leaning near monopoly, they're simply being victims. IMHO, that tends to showcase the shallowness of those accusations, vs any validity
-
Js, do you really believe this? Have you been so captured by the liberalism bent in this nation that you cannot see?
"captured by liberalism"
Pray tell, what makes me a "liberal" professor?
Heck, even the word "Liberal" has changed its meaning lately. PC run amok.
Only in America does the word "liberal" have such an alternative and stupid meaning.
Be bold! Do not succumb to a PC world. Create your own reality. Do not bow to the mainstream, I challenge you. Please.
Create my own reality? I think that is part of the problem. I choose to live in reality my friend.
Think independently. If a term has changed its menaing due ot societal influences, why accept this?
What makes you think I do?
truly beleive we are better off, culturally, than, say, 50 years ago when traditional values reigned, then you have truly been captured by the new "liberals".
Oh, you mean the culture of 1956? By all means tell me what was better about 1956 than now Professor. I have an open mind and am willing to learn.
-
An earleir timewhen Biblical precepts were followed more than today...we asa culture are slowly moving away from Biblical standards. Look, let's look at it form a secular viewpoint. An example: A reason why God says permarital sex is bad is not necesarily because He is Big and Bad and wants to ZAP you, it is because He know that many young people simply are not ready for the implications
Biblical precepts can be excellent guidance in this manner in many areas as well.
-
An earleir timewhen Biblical precepts were followed more than today...we asa culture are slowly moving away from Biblical standards. Look, let's look at it form a secular viewpoint. An example: A reason why God says permarital sex is bad is not necesarily because He is Big and Bad and wants to ZAP you, it is because He know that many young people simply are not ready for the implications
So, it is your belief that Biblical precepts were more closely followed in 1956 than in 2006? Correct?
According to the National Center for Health Statistics there were 525,000 teen pregnancies in 1956 and that number has declined, though the total population has increased significantly. That means the rate of teenage pregnancy has dropped drastically over the past 50 years.
I realize why God speaks out against fornication Professor, but that doesn't answer my questions.
Why is 1956 society better than today's?
Why are you calling me a liberal?
-
A question: do YOU see yourself as a liberal, in the venacular itis used presently?
-
"Why is 1956 society better than today's?"
Society was more Bibilically-oriented. Examine the Supreme Court at that time.
Look, JS, let me make it clear, tohguh, being very perceptive (and you are!), I am sure you grasped this some time ago:
I am trying, valiantly but unsuccessfully, to help to restrain the forces I feel are leading our culture away from Bibilical precepts. I relaize I will, and am, losing, but I still need to desparrately TRY. It is who I am. And I am happy with this.
I accept there are many that do not share this view and that is cool. Just because I happen to diagree with them (and YOU many times), doesn't mean I do not respect their character; I just feel that all this energy driving us away from Biblical precepts could be diverted to more worthwhile ends.
This is not to say that churches are the answer. Churches are filled with highly-flawed individuals like me and they, in turn, have failed much of society. I say "Look to the Creator, not his products". As an example, I took my beautiful bride to see "Flags of Our Fathers" yesterday. As we were coming back, we exited and noticed a homeless guy with a sign, asking for funds. My wife made the comment that it is so sad that churchers aren't taking care of his needs. I TOTALLY CONCUR! Churches, IMHO, has largely abducated thier roles in this area and perhaps others to the Government. Heresy, I say! :-)
Anyway, that is obviously where I am coming from. Please do not take this personally. One of the reasons I deliberately read your posts is because I find them thought-provoking and THAT, my friend, is priceless!
-
A question: do YOU see yourself as a liberal, in the venacular itis used presently?
No. What makes you think that I am.
Listen, I appreciate the complement. I know sometimes things get personal here and I'm as guilty as anyone for that. I certainly have respect for a lot of people here. There are a few people here (Chicky, Missus, Bt) that I've known for more years than any of us would care to admit!
I guess this is one fundamental area that I'll never agree with the more traditionalist minded people. While every generation and every age has its battles to fight and problems to face, I just don't see that there was this golden age of society in the 1950's (the most quoted time period) nor do I think that the generation that fought World War II was by any means the "Greatest Generation" (that speaks more to Brokaw's psychological frame of mind than historical accuracy).
I think there were a great deal of injustices in the 1950's and a great deal of advancements made since then. There have been a lote of stigmas overcome since the 1950's and yes, in some areas we probably have taken a wrong step or two, but that happens.
-
Regarding this degenerating "debate," the "liberal" orientation is a fundamental part of and essential to the American psyche. We cannot proceed without it. In the crucible that will determine our values and practices going forward, any America without a requisite amount of liberalism, properly defined, is an America that is heading for the shoals. Race plays into this superficially. I celebrate black political achievers like Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Bill Cosby and Mr. Steele in Maryland. By all appearances, I would love to have Steele as a friend, for example, because I respect him deeply ... except for his politics. I would, and I will in New Jersey, vote Democratic. I share this orientation with many blacks, due to their history and circumstances, who, when faced with a choice between hope and progress (as they adamantlyy see it), on the one hand, and the forces of a believed-to-be atavistic tradition, on the other, reliably respond in great numbers for progress. Like them, I believe this is not a time for "nuance," but a time to elect a team with a vision that incorporates our aspirations.
-
Why is 1956 society better than today's?"
it never was better
people just think it is
those were the days when your sister could be your mother.
ex. jack nicholson
everybody was hidding secrets in those days
nowadays too many things is public
the term too much information never existed then
-
There are some ideas so ludicrous and mischievous that only an academic would take them seriously. One of them is diversity. Think about it. Are you for or against diversity?
I gotta disagree, Diversity , both racial and intellectual has a certain value.
In the case of racial diversity the value is easy to understand and practical, disease resistance is greater in a diverse population. During the Irish Potato Famine the Irish were farming potato's all descendants of the same cuttings, all of Ireland was raising clones of the same potato, when a fungus that liked this potato learned to overcome the immune system of this potato it was like a burglar learning the combination to the bank vault and all of the vaults and safes in the country were the same. Massive crop failures were directly attributable to this lack of diversity.
Cheetas have this problem , Cheetas are all closely enough related to swap skin grafts with no danger of rejection , they are on borrowed time . The most convincing speculation I have seen is that Cheetas at one time were a widespread species but some sort of calamity destroyed almost all of them , now they are all the descendants of a small population and their lack of diversity is one of their main risks .
There is a region near Olduvai where there is an isolated population of Lions the land is productive in lion food but this small number of lions have inbred to the point that they are suffering disease from it, conservationists have attempted to introduce some "foreign" lions to relieve their inbreeding problem but lions habits do not accept strangers into the pride easily so the problem is not solved yet.
In a human population it would work the exact same way .If some disease were to attack a racially pure population , Hitlers ideal was a recipe for catastrophe with the potential for causing human extinction. One of the ways that Humans could cease to be is to loose all of our diversity .
Intellectual diversity speeds up thinking .
If you owned an hundred PC computers and had a tremendous number crunching problem, You could use just one of them and get it done after a long time, but you could not use all of them to speed up your work without some way of insuring that they each were working on a diffrent part of the problem. If you had an hundred operators or a interconnection system to spread the data among the PCs but started the problem at the same point on each of them ,the hundred would do the task at the same speed as one . To get them to do the task faster you would get the problem broken down into sections that could be distributed among the diffrent PCs and assemble the sub answers in one one hundredths the time (potentially) as allowing one to handle it all.
People can do this and in a natural condition of a human population there is a lot of diversity in experience , education and habit . The Human Race has a lot of problems and they are distributed so well that almost all and each of us have a diffrent set of problems as a subset of the set of problems problems facing our species. An effort to standardize the thinking of human beings works against this desireable natural diversity , as we naturally are, we all each work on our own problem and everytime a new solution is developed some others adopt it . Meme is the term for a repeatable learnable behavior , a natural population of human beings develops failing and succeeding memes in profusion and the natural success of the succeeding behaviors and failure of the failing behaviors and the spread by learning in preference of the successfull ones amounts to a huge amount of computing.
But what would it be like to standardize human thought among a large population? Make us all proper adherents of a single "ism" and we all try the same solutions in the same order , this would be the loss of a huge advantage that we enjoy hardly knowing that we do.
In the environment of a University these become practical considerations , less esoteric and uncontrollable than in the world at large.
Lots of people meet their mates in colledge so hybridization is a likely result of collecting a diverse population .
People gathered from several cultures into a university campus cross pollinate their thinking and their ways of thinking , students often learn as much from each other as they do from their Professors and they also after a while become the professors , so a diversity of assumption sets ,thinking experience and ways of thinking is an advantage that ought not be lost to the University setting whether because of Prejudice racially or PC cleansing of thinking "wrong".
-
"..., we exited and noticed a homeless guy with a sign, asking for funds...."
That might be Whit.
Did he have an injury to his face?
-
If you truly beleive we are better off, culturally, than, say, 50 years ago when traditional values reigned, then you have truly been captured by the new "liberals".
We do not live in a cultural paradise, but we certainly seem better off culturally compared to 50 years ago. And I do not see why that would be a specifically liberal position, because I am not a liberal. (Just ask the liberals.) Would you mind, Professor, explaining why we are not better off culturally than 50 years ago?
-
don`t know about culturally
but people are way way better off today than ever before
in the fifties police were completely useless if not dangerous.
to today at least they help .
-
in the fifties police were completely useless if not dangerous.
to today at least they help .
Sheriff indicted in drug case
Cassell, others charged with reselling drugs seized from criminals
SUE LINDSEY
Associated Press
ROANOKE, Va. - A sheriff and 12 current and former officers in a hard-luck rural county that once billed itself the "Sweatshirt Capital of the World" were charged Thursday in a scheme to resell drugs seized from criminals.
A former postal worker, a former probation officer and five other people also were indicted by federal prosecutors. The charges included racketeering conspiracy, weapons charges, narcotics distribution, obstruction of justice and perjury.
H. Franklin Cassell -- sheriff of Henry County, a former textile hub about 50 miles south of Roanoke -- was quoted by investigators as saying the only way to acquire wealth is to be "a little crooked and not get caught."
Henry County, about 130 miles northeast of Charlotte, is best known for the Martinsville Speedway, where NASCAR races are run twice a year.
Cassell, 68, was a state trooper before being elected sheriff in 1991. He owns large tracts of land and a trucking company and has reported more than $20,000 in dividends yearly, the Virginia government said.
The salary range for sheriffs in counties the size of Henry County is $85,500 to $93,500, according to state law.
Prosecutors said that for the past eight years, cocaine, steroids, marijuana and other drugs that had been seized by the sheriff's department were resold to the public. A sergeant who agreed to cooperate with investigators was paid off by the ring to use his house for distributing drugs, authorities said.
"It is disgraceful corruption," U.S. Attorney John Brownlee said.
Cassell was charged with impeding the investigation by the FBI and federal drug enforcement agents and with money laundering. He was released on $25,000 bail.
"He's served with great dedication," defense attorney John Lichtenstein said of Cassell. "Now we get an opportunity to answer the accusations."
© 2006 Charlotte Observer and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.charlotte.com
Article (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/15917355.htm)
-
$85,500 to $93,500, in virginia is not enough????
he`s full of s%!t big time
-
Would you mind, Professor, explaining why we are not better off culturally than 50 years ago?
I believe I discussed it earlier, but...
Culture is linked to values and our values, if you examine them from a Biblical context, are detereoriating.
-
actually we`re better today
the bible does cover values very well
in the fifties people get beat up alot and it considered ok
today folks actually get arrested
maybe not convicted but at least it`s progress.
-
Culture is linked to values and our values, if you examine them from a Biblical context, are detereoriating.
From a Biblical context? You want to see people getting pelted with stones for adultery? What do you mean when you say "Biblical context"? And then, if you would, please explain why that standard is the one against which we should measure our non-theocratic culture.
-
The new testament. How about the numerous anti-homeosexual referecens made by Paul?
AS far as your last statement, earlier I indicated it was IMHO. I believe our governemnt should reflect Christian values. Obviously you disagree, and that is fine.
Tell you what: get together 50 reps from a wide selection of Christian denominations and be guided by that, if this compromsie will serve.
-
does unitarians count?
-
The new testament. How about the numerous anti-homeosexual referecens made by Paul?
AS far as your last statement, earlier I indicated it was IMHO. I believe our governemnt should reflect Christian values. Obviously you disagree, and that is fine.
So would you call yourself a Dominionist?
Here is a bit from an article about Dominionism:
"Dominionism is a natural if unintended extension of Social Darwinism and is frequently called “Christian Reconstructionism.†Its doctrines are shocking to ordinary Christian believers and to most Americans. Journalist Frederick Clarkson, who has written extensively on the subject, warned in 1994 that Dominionism “seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of ‘Biblical Law.’†He described the ulterior motive of Dominionism is to eliminate “…labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools.†Clarkson then describes the creation of new classes of citizens:
“Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment [to] blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.â€[10]
Today, Dominionists hide their agenda and have resorted to stealth; one investigator who has engaged in internet exchanges with people who identify themselves as religious conservatives said, “They cut and run if I mention the word ‘Dominionism.’â€[11] Joan Bokaer, the Director of Theocracy Watch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University wrote, “In March 1986, I was on a speaking tour in Iowa and received a copy of the following memo [Pat] Robertson had distributed to the Iowa Republican County Caucus titled, “How to Participate in a Political Party.†It read:
“Rule the world for God.
“Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.
“Hide your strength.
“Don’t flaunt your Christianity.
“Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing.â€[12]
Dominionists have gained extensive control of the Republican Party and the apparatus of government throughout the United States; they continue to operate secretly. Their agenda to undermine all government social programs that assist the poor, the sick, and the elderly is ingeniously disguised under false labels that confuse voters. Nevertheless, as we shall see, Dominionism maintains the necessity of laissez-faire economics, requiring that people “look to God and not to government for help.â€[13] "
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm
-
Sheeesh
Reads like the protocols of the elders of zion.
-
Dominionism? Sounds like a Chrisitian version of the Taliban.
Just a return to traditional values is enough. I am not about to delineate each and every one...geeesh.
No need to get all wacky here.
-
Dominionism? Sounds like a Chrisitian version of the Taliban. Just a return to traditional values is enough. I am not about to delineate each and every one...geeesh. No need to get all wacky here.
*snicker*....you have to consider the source ;)
-
The new testament. How about the numerous anti-homeosexual referecens made by Paul?
What about them? And since we're talking about the New Testament, I'd say we might be closer now to the idea of personal responsibility and service to others rather than lording over them than we were 50 years ago. But then again, given the nature of the words and political activity of the "religious right" perhaps we are losing sight of Biblical values taught to us in the New Testament.
AS far as your last statement, earlier I indicated it was IMHO. I believe our governemnt should reflect Christian values. Obviously you disagree, and that is fine.
Whoa there, bub. I never said our government should not reflect Christian values. We were talking about American culture not government. Our culture is not a theocratic one and never has been. However important religion is or has been in our culture, we do not structure our lives around dictates from priests or pastors or holy men. They may teach us moral rules for living, but they do not rule our lives with authority. Anyway, when people start talking about comparing our culture to Biblical values or some such, I always want to ask why this is to be our standard. And almost invariably the answer involves something to do with our government and/or our laws. People wanting to "return" to some sort of Biblical standard frequently seem to mean imposing their moral preferences on other people via legislation. You did not say that, but you did turn from talking about American culture to talking about the American government. So which one are we talking about? Christianity reflected in government or in culture?
Tell you what: get together 50 reps from a wide selection of Christian denominations and be guided by that, if this compromsie will serve.
Will serve what? And why do I need 50 representatives of Christian denominations to guide me? Do you think I am incapable of a my own personal relationship with God and making up my own mind about such matters?
-
So, whatever feels okay is okay? Nope, won't work in the long term anyway.
-
Dominionism? Sounds like a Chrisitian version of the Taliban.
Just a return to traditional values is enough. I am not about to delineate each and every one...geeesh.
No need to get all wacky here.
Can't you just "return" to them in your private life and let other people be? This country was better off before we got lots of evangelicals and fundamentalists running around talking about "returning" to some golden time when "values" were, um, valued. Can't you all just go live by your values and let the rest of us go to hell? Won't it be nicer in heaven without us riffraff around, anyway?
And let me ask you....would someone who wanted to live by Christian values pass on by a man asking for food in the street?
-
Did you ever decide what color the fundi's armbands should be?
Pick a location for the workcamps yet?
-
No armbands or camps, thank you.
It's been done to death.
-
It's been done to death.
Now you are catching on.
-
Can't you just "return" to them in your private life and let other people be? This country was better off before we got lots of evangelicals and fundamentalists running around talking about "returning" to some golden time when "values" were, um, valued. Can't you all just go live by your values and let the rest of us go to hell? Won't it be nicer in heaven without us riffraff around, anyway?
And let me ask you....would someone who wanted to live by Christian values pass on by a man asking for food in the street?
We can't. "We are called to go forth and make disciples of all men."
And, I would hope anyone, Christian or not, would help those who are needy. Also, part of our charge. "If you do not have love, then you have nothing."
-
I wonder how many blacks were murdered by whites in the 1950's. I wonder how many of those whites got away with murder because a jury of all whites found them "not guilty."
You know it happened on occasion here in the South. Oh, it had nothing to do with the evidence in the case. It was the jurors' beliefs that their society was being infringed upon by blacks and northerners who loved the blacks. Yes, the Bible-thumping, God-fearing South was a hell of a place at the time. The Klan was having a strong revival.
"Protect our way of life" was a common phrase - and you hear it today too, only now it is the Mexicans who threaten "our way of life."
Amazing how things change.
-
...heavy sigh...
So, we will continue down this NEW road of today, watering down what is right and wrong, until eventually, there will be no delineation.
IMHO, Man is inherently evil and if left to his own devices, he will sleect the scumiest road. Biblical percepts provide guidance toward a HIGHER road...
-
My point Professor is that American society was no better fifty years ago than today. Most of the people in the Klan considered themselves to be "patriots" and God-fearing Christians. Even those who did not belong to the Klan, but supported segregation staunchly most likely considered themselves to be good Christians (in fact there were ministers and preachers who were staunch segregationists).
If you believe man is inherently evil then you probably should not believe in the United States. We are at our base a Lockian system of a state contract and quite frankly it just does not function with the theory that man is inherently evil (I'm not saying I disagree). Perhaps, what we need then is a Hobbesian style of government that takes such a fact into account?
Regardless, there was no golden age of the 1950's.
And "traditional values" is crap. Many of you lament the 60's, but the 1960's had to happen because so many were being oppressed and destroyed by the "traditional values" of the 1950's. The truth is the "Greatest Generation" turned out to be horrible at running a society.
-
but it don`t have to be from the bible
what about buddhist teachings it`s just as good
even better actually since it`s abit more on the non-violence part.
you can`t go wrong with non-violence.
-
I agree with you, Kimba.
I'd never renounce Christianity but I can sure incorporate some Buddhism into it.