[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 36°F  
High: 48°F ~ Low: 22°F
Saturday, Dec. 20, 2014

Turns out Denying Rights is Unconstitutional

Posted Wednesday, August 4, 2010, at 5:02 PM

(Photo)
If you have heard the news today then you know what the title of the blog is in reference to, you should also not be shocked that I am writing this blog.

Through our over 200 years of history in this country. When laws are passed by legislatures or people, if those laws deny people basic rights they will be overturned. It may takes years upon years (Brown V. Board of Education came almost exactly 100 years after the slaves were freed), but on thing that is guaranteed is that if the law is put in based on one person or group of people denying another person or group of people's rights that law will be overturned.

All the laws that have been popping over the last few years surrounding homosexuality are slowly being overturned. One of the most recent, until today, was a law passed in Arkansas by voters that made it illegal for homosexual couples to adopt. This particular law was a little easier to overturn. The language of the proposed amendment was so vague I still do not know how it got on the ballot and stayed. The original language that the voters of Arkansas voted for stated that it was illegal for unmarried couples living together from adopting. I said at the time of it's passage that the new law forbade me and my then girlfriend (now wife) from adopting.

That is the basic reason that law was overturned. The more complex reason that the law was overturned was because it was denying Americans from adopting children. It was deemed unconstitutional because the last time I checked the Constitution, simply put, assured Americans their rights not denied them. The only amendment that was added to the Constitution that denied rights (18th Amendment) was repealed 13 years later.

Today, a federal court has overturned Proposition 8 in California which barred homosexuals from marrying. We can debate how the law passed originally at another time, but the law itself forbade Americans their very basic right of pursuit of happiness. It may be uncomfortable for you to know that homosexuals do, in fact, exist, but at the end of the day it is not in your power to tell them what they can and can not do.

The judge in the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker (and before you start going around shouting liberal activist judge, Judge Walker was appointed by Reagan), said in his remarks that

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples..."

This pretty much flies in the face of the arguments that the supporters of Prop 8 claimed the law was meant to do. They said that the law simply did nothing more safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing. It takes a pretty good stretch of the imagination to honestly believe that and apparently Judge Walker was not fooled.

Before the activist judge chants start up let me make a case for why this is simply a case of a judge protecting the Constitution from the majority. It is a lot easier to pass laws denying rights. It is a lot harder to pass laws protecting rights. Our federal judges are in place to look at cases and decide Constitutionally whether the laws fit. If they do not then the cases are overturned.

This case will eventually make it to the Supreme Court where a final pronouncement is made whether or not homosexuals getting married is a civil rights issue and should there fore be protected.

It should be interesting.

One thing I have been noticing about this particular issue is that it has slowly gone out of of the national Republican stance. They, seemingly, are onto something new. Which is immigration, legal or illegal. For most the 2000s John McCain was a staunch supporter of amnesty. Suddenly in the last presidential campaign he made a 180 degree flop and came out against amnesty.

But perhaps one of the most amazing things coming out now is that several senators, including McCain, are now wanting to review the 14th Amendment. I am sure you have all heard of it. The 14th Amendment is the amendment that states that anyone born in the United States is a US Citizen. This is nativism at it's purest. Of course those among us that look at everything the New Republican TEAParty does today sees nothing more than a veiled threat against Obama.

This would presumably be on their agenda if they take over both Houses of Congress. I wish them luck because they would have to pull a modern miracle to get it through Congress, override a certain veto by Obama, and then for enough states to vote in the new amendment.

This coupled with the decision in Arkansas and gay marriage issue in Massachusettes, and the Muslim center decision in New York give me new hope that intolerance does not always win the day.

UPDATE: This could not be funnier if it was not true. If you go the GOPs own page and scroll down to 1966 they list one of their achievements as passing the 14th Amendment, the very amendment they now want to "review". Welcome to 21st Century America.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

I don't know how they would rewrite the 14th Amendment though. If someone comes here on a visa or illegally, gets pregnant by an American citizen then is the child American or a citizen of the foreign parent's country? Too much inconsistency, they won't rewrite the 14th Amendment. They make a valid point that the 14th Amendment was not intended to be used in the way it has been. It's a big mess in the way our current immigration policy has been used but solving one problem there will just lead to another problem elsewhere.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 5:17 PM

From what I understand they want to completely get rid of the 14th Amendment which would mean that if I child was born here that child would not be a United States citizen but a citizen of the parent's country.

Section One of the 14th Amendment is pretty clear:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't really see how a justification can be made that we are using the amendment in a way it was not meant to be used. It clearly says right at the beginning, All persons. It makes no distinctions. So, I'm sorry I do not buy your claim that they are making a valid claim. The language is clear.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 5:39 PM

It's nativist at it's purest, ugliest form.

I will say that I guess I was right about the switch to immigration since 3/4 of my blog was about homosexuality and so far every post has been about the 1/4 I devoted to immigration.

I'm not saying to change the discussion just merely pointing that out.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 6:19 PM

G.I. and Mike,

I have had discussions with you on homosexuality so why do you accuse me of shying away from it? I'm the only conservative here so... You talkin to me? I'm the only one here so you must be talking to me. Lol.

We know what the intent is because every amendment that has been added came about to address a specific issue that was happening at the time. Illegal immigration was not addressed as the need for the 14th amemdment.

It's been used as part of an immigration issue which it was not intended to address so it's no wonder why we have problems with our actual immigration policy and how it is at odds with the 14th amendment but that is how it has been interpreted

What I'm saying is that repealing the 14th amendment won't solve anything. Just for the sake of the following example, let's pretend the 14th was repealed. If a Mexican woman comes here illegally or on a temp visa and has a child in the US and the father is a US citizen, is the child a US citizen or Mexican citizen? Reverse the roles and make it a Mexican man who comes here and the mother is a US citizen then the same question of citizenship applies. Repealing the 14th does not resolve that and actually makes it more confusing.

Mike,

I can't believe you constantly go to calling people nativists because they oppose illegal immigration. I know that's not how I feel and that's not how people feel who I talk to either. I'm sure there are people like that out there but they are a very small minority. This is why there is so much anger on each side and you are only fueling it. You want to think they are evil and assign beliefs to them they don't hold and those on the other side get upset for accusations of nativism that do not apply to them.

G.I.,

You and I had a very long discussion on this before. Did that sound like I wanted to keep Mexican people from becoming US citizens?

-- Posted by McCook1 on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 11:08 PM

If there were a mosque being built on ground zero then yes I would agree.

But the Muslim center being built a few blocks away is coming and it sounds like it's going to be a very nice place that all can go to.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 7:32 AM

It already has that unique story with Sarah Palin somehow making the bold and hilarious jump to conclusion that this is only the beginning ... of what no one really knows. But it's scary (in their words) and you should be scared to. Why? Because they told you to be scared.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 9:41 AM

Let's put this all into perspective. Conservatives and the Religious Right think that homosexuality is a sin. Fine. They also believe that having sex with a cousin is a sin. Perfect.

When the argument always gets started about gay marriage you always have those people like Man on dog Santorum and Bill O'Reilly who imagine the worst possible thing that will happen if gays will be allowed. That is how they frame their argument. Quite frankly how can someone who believes in equality for all man and woman defend man-animal marriage? We can't.

This is where the cousin part comes in. If having sex with your cousin is considered sinful then why do 20 states allow 1st cousins to marry? If cousins marrying cousins is allowable but sex between two cousins is sinful then how can they at the same time make the argument that sex between two men or women is sinful yet they can not get married?

I have always laughed at the notion that they present that they are trying to protect the sanctity of marriage. What sanctity? This country's divorce rate is over 50%, we have husbands beating wives and vice versa, cheating spouses, etc.

In this day and age barring two people that love each other from getting marriage is simply outdated.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 9:48 AM

I find it interesting that people in US give so much power to the Muslims they dislike. The way we are currently applying policy to Muslim countries can be interestingly paralleled to christianity and ancient Rome.

During that period of time Christian persecution created many martyrs for the religion increasing popularity. Along with supposed "legitimacy".

Currently our policy in the countries we are at "war" with are doing the same thing. Creating long lists of martyrs for future generations to look up to. Along with increasing the exposure and popularity of the religion around the globe.

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 9:48 AM

If there were a way to prevent the mosque with their zoning then I think that should be pursued but absent that, there's nothing, legally, that they can do. I understand where the family members of victims are coming from. The attacks were an act of jihad by some extremist followers of Islam and that sticks in their minds. Then they start hearing about a radical cleric having a part in it and how Muslims erect mosques on conquered territory, it's not hard to understand their disbelief and anger at the whole thing.

However, we have laws for this kind of thing that apply and I have not seen anything that prevents them from putting it there. There are radical mosques in the country but we can't know if this is one of them until it is built and people start using it. If it were to be used to recruit terrorists or knowingly house wanted terrorists then I think authorities have a legal obligation to step in and shut it down but it's all speculation right now. I feel for the families but this is America and our freedoms and rights apply even to those who have no concern for the feelings of the families that were hurt by 9/11.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 10:28 AM

Mike:

If 20 states allow cousins to marry, why aren't you getting worked up about the 30 that don't, isn't their right to love each other sacred with you? Which brings another interesting thought to mind, suppose two gay cousins fall in love and want to get married, what happens if the state allows gay marriage but not cousins to marry. When that happens I'm totally there marching with those cousins!

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 10:34 AM

I also have a more serious question. In California do same-sex couples enter civil unions? If so what are the differences between civil unions and marriage, other than the name?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 10:58 AM

Molly,

So you think the whole gay marriage debate is about a contract signing ceremony for gay people? Non-gay people can be married without a wedding, are those marriages invalid?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 11:11 AM

Molly, have you actually READ what Jesus said? I have, and there is nothing anywhere that negates God's basic sexual laws. In fact, Jesus said that God made man and woman to twain together and be one flesh. Maybe you should try Reading More Jesus. :-)

No where in the Constitution or any foundation papers did our Founding Fathers make mention of indecent sexual actions as a basis for civil rights.

This does in no way mean that people living indecent lives are limited from doing so...it is, after all, a free country.

However, those of us that actually Read More Jesus should, by that same freedom, not be forced to applaud and worship indecent sexual behavior in public.

As with about 99% of all Christians, I am fine with people "shacking up" together, whether they are same sex or opposite sex...or undecided. Adults are free to choose any sinful lifestyle they prefer. Their choices, however, do not change that lifestyle into something magically non-sinful...just as a man-written law does not change that lifestyle into something magically non-sinful.

So, all you Christian-haters out there can force through man-written laws that create non-marriages...just as laws were forced through that destroyed Free Speech rights for Christians...but you can't change God's laws. Sorry! :-)

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 11:29 AM

@MrsSmith, You don't have to change something that exists only in confused peoples minds.

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 11:33 AM

MrsSmith you are the perfect example of finding the worst in a situation to make what you believe should be what the majority believe.

I have not seen one case where those who oppose gay marriage have been forced to applaud and worship indecent sexual behavior in public. Can you please point out a case of that?

What makes you think that these actions are being performed by Christian-haters? Just because you say so? I know many gay people that are Christians. But I know in your mind that just isn't possible.

Your entire statement is full of contradiction upon contradiction. You say they can't do it because of God's love then turn around and say that they can because we live in a free country.

You are using your translation of the Bible to hate those that are doing something you disprove of.

What people do behind closed doors is of no concern to you.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 12:24 PM

My point still remains SW. There are 20 states and a handful of other states that allow cousins to marry (in those other states there are provisions, mostly both people having to be over a certain age, odd as that may sound) yet to many, that is a sin.

But it doesn't change the basic argument that if two people love each other who are you or I to tell them that they can't.

I know that you consider civil unions and marriage to be exactly the same but for a lot of people they simply are not. For you to tell them that they should just get a civil union is judgmental.

By the way, no, California does not recognize civil unions for homosexuals.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 12:29 PM

I believe the main point about all of this is, gay people just want the ability to marry those that they love. They shouldn't have to ask for yours or mine permission before doing it. If you have a problem with it, don't go the wedding, avoid them like the plague. But don't tell them what they can and cannot do.

While the subject of the Bible has been brought up by MrsSmith, the book also says that women guilty of adultery should be stoned in public and children that curse their parents should have their tongues cut out. We don't practice any of that so why are we still holding onto this one?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 12:33 PM

In defense of the mostly indefensible:

Why should MrsSmith have to support her ridiculous claims when no one else has to?

I took her claims about Christian haters to be directed at the self-proclaimed Christian haters on these boards and those that change laws to the detriment of Christians, but you seem to imply she meant indecent actions are done by Christian haters, I could be wrong.

I didn't see any contradictions in her words, I suggest you read more carefully what people say, instead of jumping to conclusions based on your assumptions. She said you can't change God's laws but she never said you can't engage in indecent (MrsSmith's and Mike's words I don't agree with) behavior. The implication I took from her words is that she believes you shouldn't do so.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 12:49 PM

Mike,

I don't know if try to offend me or if it just comes naturally for you. How on earth can you be so full of yourself that you can go about proclaiming the you KNOW what other people think? Are you really that much of a self-centered jerk that you believe you are the arbiter of other people's thoughts? I think you should do some outright thinking about what you say before you do so.

When did I ever say civil unions were the same as marriage, if you would read my question rather than once again jumping to conclusions you would see that I was asking what the difference is? There is a difference between not understanding the difference and saying there is not one. Where did I say they should just get a civil union? Talk about judgemental.

I think I deserve an apology.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 1:15 PM

Guillermo,

Yes my point about MrsSmith's ridiculous claims was meant to be a small joke.

I need to hang out with more gay people perhaps to answer my questions but I've heard of people complaining that even if civil unions were tantamount to marriage it would not be acceptable because it was not a marriage. It seems you would agree that if all things were equal except title this would be acceptable to most of your gay friends. If you have any who it is not acceptable could you find out why it isn't?

If people say that gay people can't get married but can enter in civil unions that are equivalent are they being discriminatory in your view? It seems to me that is the argument I hear most often from people who are opposed to gay marriage.

A final note on MrsSmith's last post. Do you really consider that post to be terrible hostility and discrimination? Leaving aside her moralistic approach to homosexuality she wasn't particularly hostile in my opinion. Sure one could argue that her use of the term indecent is somewhat hostile, but compared to the hostility that is usually on these boards, that seems almost warm and fuzzy.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 1:28 PM

Guillermo,

I find it odd that you who has often accused me of putting words in your mouth when I try to clarify your position, find it appropriate for Mike to do so to me.

No need to apologize, he is a whiner and so am I.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 1:31 PM

Hey SW I thought you didn't call people names. I remember a rather lengthy debate over several blogs where you decried others (almost exclusively myself, GI, Senior and other liberals but left every conservative on this site off somehow) for name-calling.

I guess you were just filling us with hot air again, huh?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 3:46 PM

Sorry but I just caught this comment from McCook1 "I'm the only conservative here"

That's just classic.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 3:51 PM

By the way McCook1 I never called a single person that opposes illegal immigration as a nativist. Good spin though. No, actually it's an outright lie. The people I called nativists are the ones that all of a sudden after over 100 years want to "review" an amendment that made it possible for people born in this country to be automatically American.

That is nativist.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 3:53 PM

SW, while you never specifically did say they were the same you line of question led several posters on here to believe that you were attempting to call them the same

It's just the way you continually frame your own arguments just treading that line from saying something, though meaning it. That way when someone says you said it you get to puff yourself all up and act the victim and call people names (though you say you don't do that).

Tell you what as soon as you apologize for all the name calling you have done continuously on this blog against only liberals I will apologize for putting words in your mouth.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 3:57 PM

Guillermo, Mike, Shalom.

If a Christian is mandated the choosing between God's Law, and Man's law, we have no choice but to opt for God's Law, and reject Man's law. We were warned, going in, that hatred of Christianity would be the Social norm, but opted for God, no matter.

If you live up to Prophecies words, you will condemn, and hate us, even to invoking violence upon us. Still we cannot accept your version of law, with man being the designer (does 'Abomination' come to your mind, as it does mine?).

Search your heart, and determine your Life 'choice,' as relates to Eternity, and allow the Christian to do likewise, hopefully without the violence that follows Personal Contempt so closely. Nuff-Said.

In Messiah, Jesus' service. Arley

-- Posted by Navyblue on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 4:28 PM

Mike,

I thought I'd throw in a little paraphrased taxi driver since it was true at the time.

Thanks for clarifying that you don't think people who oppose illegal immigration are nativists or anything of the sort.

G.I.,

"Let's have America, a place where people came (and still come) to escape religious prejudice and persecution, become the exact opposite of one of the premises of our foundation."

If there are zoning regulations that prevent it from being built, which is what we are talking about, not whether the existing one should stay, then why should they be allowed to bypass those regulations? In the same respect that I would say it has a right to be built, I also believe if the zoning did not allow it then it should not be built. You can not give detrimental or preferential treatment that ignores the laws because of the religion. If zoning prevented it, it should not be built. If zoning allows it, then it should be allowed to be built. Do you think they should be allowed to build if it violated the zoning for the area?

This project is completely insensitive to the families of the 9/11 victims. If someone who refused to condemn Bloody Sunday wanted to build a monument to the Alabama State Patrol near the historical route from Selma to Montgomery that would be considered wrong to those victims even though that person would have every right to build there according to the zoning. Out of all the places to build, choosing that one would be highly suspect as is this one. It's not about religion, it's about respecting the victims and their families. Common decency is the only thing that can stop this but that is not a factor to the people who have complete disregard for these families. That is unfortunate, perfectly legal but unfortunate. Nobody would care if there was a monument to the Alabama State Patrol if it weren't placed so close to an area where some members of the Alabama State Patrol committed such an atrocity. Not everyone in the State Patrol supported what happened but the effect on those victims and their families would still be hurtful to them and the memory of their loved ones. The same thing applies to some members of Islam who were committing jihad on America and killed people that were extremely loved by these families. They could build a grand mosque in New York at a number of prominent locations but they chose this one despite knowing the families of the 9/11 victims strongly objected.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 4:58 PM

Molly says, "However you ARE expected to stop using your religion to make laws that step on the rights of others! Maybe that's why people hate Christians? Stop acting like the taliban and mind your own business."

So why is it, Molly, that you have no problem with laws that step on the rights of Christians?

Do you protest the IRS regulations that punish free speech on private property? Or is it OK to step on that right?

Could you please name the law Christians have written that removed the right to gay marriage?

Just when did this supposed "right" come into existence?

From my perspective, it is quite clear that those not "minding their own business" are the leftist that are demanding legal changes to enforce their moral views.

Finally, why do you hate Christians? Because we actually DO tolerate those that have differing viewpoints?

Because we actually do give everyone the freedom to choose their own lifestyle?

Because, unlike the left, we don't demand that everyone think our way and live our way. All we ask is that YOU stop forcing YOUR moral opinions onto the entire nation.

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 5:21 PM

Mike says, "You are using your translation of the Bible to hate those that are doing something you disprove of.

What people do behind closed doors is of no concern to you."

You are absolutely correct that actions behind closed doors between consenting adults are of no concern to me...which would be why I clearly stated that adults can choose any lifestyle that pleases them.

However, the issue here is not what happens behind closed doors, it's what happens in our courts, in our laws, and in our public areas.

It's about bigoted, prejudiced liberals forcing their views of morality on our entire country.

It's about those that hate Biblical laws and those that understand them enough to cheer the regulations that strangle their free speech.

It's about things like the Folsom Street Fair coming to McCook. http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007...

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 5:28 PM

Hello fellow posters!

I feel discrimination is just wrong no matter the cause. People should let everyone live as they choose as long it doesn't harm another. Yes, discrimination still exists. It is sad. I grew up in a very eclectic city. I had friends of all races and religions and even of homosexuality. I found it difficult to however to be friends with every one. Some where discriminatory with me. They believed that there was no way I could be non-discriminatory. I remember being told numerous times that I couldn't fit in because I am white.

GI~

You had mentioned:

"Americans (in particular non-white male Americans) have a long history of fighting discrimination"

This is so very true...but one left out...no matter what race, creed, color, nationality, etc, is the woman.

-- Posted by Grace Sandpiper on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 5:28 PM

Mike also says, "While the subject of the Bible has been brought up by MrsSmith, the book also says that women guilty of adultery should be stoned in public and children that curse their parents should have their tongues cut out. We don't practice any of that so why are we still holding onto this one?"

THANKS, MIKE!! for making my point that so many of today's left are ignorant of Christianity.

You probably don't realize it, but for anyone who has even an inkling of Basic Theology, you just stood up and explained the left.

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 5:31 PM

GI had to chime in with his "reasoned argument."

"It should, however, be pointed out that people like MrsSmith, who use their Bible as the launch pad for terrible hostility and discrimination as she did above, are the reason there are "Christian-haters" in the first place. And rightly friggin' so."

Exactly what did I say that was hostile? Or discriminatory?

I pointed out that sex outside marriage is considered indecent - without making any distinction between same or opposite sex couples. Was this hostile? Does this mean that the 70% of people that agree with me are also hostile? Or does this mean that you find a mainstream belief to be hostile, personally?

You certainly seem to support the idea that it is understandable and even laudable to hate Christians for having viewpoints that disagree with yours.

It almost seems like you are being hateful in your response to another viewpoint.

Where is the evidence of this tolerance and diversity your liberals are supposed to feel? Why do all your posts end up expressing INtolerance...especially when answering a post that specifically made the point that Christians are fine with adults choosing their own lifestyles?

Perhaps your bigotry is showing through...again?

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 5:39 PM

Molly,

No, that's not what that logic says. If I thought that I'd think that current State Patrol officers should feel responsible for what happened before many of them were born. I'm saying they should be mindful of how that would upset the families of the victims and respect those feelings.

The other part of my post only said that they should be subject to the zoning in that area just like anyone else who would want to build there. If zoning allowed it, it could go ahead. If zoning didn't allow it then it could not be built. What's wrong with requiring them to follow the same rules as everyone else. If you don't believe it should denied simply because it is a mosque then certainly you don't believe it should be allowed simply because it is a mosque. Such a belief would be contradictory for an argument on freedom of religion because the government would be favoring a project based on the religion.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 5:42 PM

Molly,

Btw, I never said it can't be built in that location. I only said it shouldn't be built in that location, out of respect for the feelings of the 9/11 families.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 5:44 PM

On a side note, if you want to know what Jesus would do, look to Mary M. Her sin was adultery. He would say "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." None of us could cast that stone and everyone would disperse. That's the first part. The second part is Jesus alone with the sinner before him and says, "woman where are your accusers? Has no man condemned you?" and she says, "No man, my Lord" and he says, "then neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more". I believe he would do the same for any sinner, no matter the sin... "neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more".

-- Posted by McCook1 on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 5:53 PM

As far as the Mosque goes, I wonder how the Iraq people felt about the US building our massive consult there after killing so many of there civilians in our un founded war.

I hope that people realize that what we did to them would be extremely similar to lets say the Westboro Baptists plotting to fly a plane into one of the buildings at Dubai.

Then those nations deciding that is was the crazed Christians who perpetrated the horrible act. Then all they have to do is falsify some evidence and invade. See how that works?

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 6:56 PM

As far as Christians pushing there morals using legislation the most glaring example that comes to mind is prohibition. We all saw how well that worked out. The truth of the matter is any laws that are made or enforced should really be made based on a few simple paradigms.

Laws shouldn't trample on personal freedoms. They shouldn't scapegoat any one people based on religious view or otherwise. Laws shouldn't be based on ridiculous rules created thousands of years ago by sand peoples. Most importantly they shouldn't violate any of the current articles in the constitution.

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 7:03 PM

G.I.

All I've said is that if zoning prohibited the mosque from being built then it shouldn't be built and if it does allow it then it should be allowed. I still don't understand why that seems to be such a problem. All I'm saying is the mosque should be subject to the law just like everyone else. I wonder if you were equally outraged when Berkely tried forcing the Marine recruiters out of town without any reason other than the fact that they didn't want them there.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 12:23 AM

Very well put Damu.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 12:24 AM

I have a question for you McCook. You continue referencing what is going to be built as a mosque. You are aware that the mosque is actually only a small portion of what is being planned, yes? They are building a Muslim center, not just a mosque.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 12:26 AM

MrsSmith you posted

Mike also says, "While the subject of the Bible has been brought up by MrsSmith, the book also says that women guilty of adultery should be stoned in public and children that curse their parents should have their tongues cut out. We don't practice any of that so why are we still holding onto this one?"

THANKS, MIKE!! for making my point that so many of today's left are ignorant of Christianity.

You probably don't realize it, but for anyone who has even an inkling of Basic Theology, you just stood up and explained the left.

Can you explain any of that? It just seems like an unmitigated attack. I could be wrong but you really need to expand on that.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 12:30 AM

My problem NavyBlue isn't whether you follow God's law or man's law it's that there is a group of Christians that only seem interested in following God's law in only certain cases. For instance following God's law about man laying with another man but not following the stoning of a woman for cheating on her husband.

It just all seems picky and choosy to me. They pick which laws they will follow on that particular day.

I have no issues with Christianity or any religion for that matter. I have issues with those that use their holy book to justify a wrong they are committing.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 12:34 AM

Just to clear the air about the historic status of the building where the Muslim center is going to be built. If the board had decided to declare the building a historic site all that would have prevented is the group changing the outside of the building. Historic status does not protect the inside, just the facade.

I would also like to add that the same people who are picking certain parts out of Quaran to justify why they are against this building are some of the same people that take offense when people make the same claim about them and Bible.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 12:37 AM

Mike,

I am aware of the fact that it is more than just a mosque. However, mosque is shorter and I figured you knew what I was referring to without having to get into semantics.

I don't know how they handle historical sites in New York but in Nebraska, certain historical aspects of the inside are protected as well as the outside. I would think that the National Park Service would have certain guidelines for such things though. The Keystone which is being done here in McCook was subject to close scrutiny to make sure they didn't change certain areas inside the building because it was on the National Registry of Historical Places. I find it hard to believe they would only protect the outside of a building though, when there has to be a lot of historical places in New York which are inside like the Senate House where most of the history is on the inside. I don't think New York's Historical Preservation Office would allow someone to remodel that house in a way that would ruin the historical architecture of the interior. I'm not sure why you believe historical site designations only apply to the outside of a building.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 9:03 AM

Damu,

"Laws shouldn't be based on ridiculous rules created thousands of years ago by sand peoples."

Many laws across all societies are based on laws created by "sand peoples". The whole idea of law came from "sand peoples" as you like to call them. Laws have changed over the years but a little history would show you that many systems of law and many current laws originated with the "sand peoples".

-- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 9:09 AM

Did a little research and they didn't try putting it on the National Registry. They only went to the Landmark Commission for New York. I went to their site and they do have requirements for the interior depending on the types of improvements and whether the interior is an interior landmark. Little odd that they needed a Landmark Commission when the National Registry still recognizes places that only have historical significance to their local community.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 9:20 AM

G.I.,

You say you're not outraged about this just before you go into claims of xenophobia. Really?! So you routinely throw around claims of xenophobia without any sense of outrage then? Besides, it's not my forgiveness they need for disregarding the feelings of the families, it's the families of the actual victims who suffer they need to speak to, not me. I'm only advocating for those families.

Who were the hate-filled people who plead to the commission for landmark status? Technically, they could still apply for a National Registry designation which would accomplish the same thing as a landmark designation. I wonder if that's next or if they don't, does that mean they aren't "hate-filled" anymore?

-- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 10:20 AM

I will say this McCook. I don't like particularly how buildings are looked at in an historical stance. To be quite honest with you I have seen pictures of the outside of the building for the proposed site and I do think it needs to be protected. It is from an earlier time in our history when building was an art form.

But from what I understand about the case before New York's Historical Preservation Office only concerned the facade of the building. The reason might be as simple as the inside has been remodeled so many times or just one time that the original floor plan is mute at this point. That is the story that I read on it.

The reason I asked if you knew is because there are a lot of people out there that don't know that what is planned is a Muslim center that has a mosque. If you only listened to certain people or watched only certain shows you would have the clear impression (wrong impression I might add) that the only thing being built on the site was a mosque and that simply isn't the case.

Leaving important information out is what leads to ignorance about what is going on. Ignorance leads to misunderstanding and that typically leads to uninformed and often times wrong opinions. Just like the fact that it isn't being built on the site of the Twin Towers, but that doesn't stop a whole bunch of people from thinking that it is.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 11:11 AM

I believe the point here is MrsSmith is if you choose to see homosexuality as indecent sexual activity, that's great, fine. But that does not give you or anyone else the right to scream it in people's faces and to make laws denying their love.

Religion is something that is meant to be practiced in private. You are in no situation to sit in judgment of whatever people are doing in the place of God. God's pretty strong about this.

If you don't approve of what they are doing then wonderful tell them you don't approve but when you move to make laws telling what they can and can not do, based upon your reading of the Bible than that is a very slippery slope that most Americans want nothing to do with.

I don't judge you because you are a Christian. I judge you because you are using your faith as a justification to hate what you don't like.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 11:19 AM

G.I.,

"In a word: Yes..."

Well, at least you're honest about it. I think most people have moved past xenophobia much like most people have moved past racism with a minority remaining who still hold those old feelings.

"Legally speaking, the building was green-lighted..."

I haven't said that anything about it wasn't legal or not. I've only said that the laws must be adhered to regardless of the outcome. My only real gripe, I guess you could call it, is that the people proposing it should be more sympathetic to those families. If their argument is that it will help to heal the anti-Muslim sentiment then let me ask, how's is this proposed project helping with that so far? If that were their objective they could go a lot further to achieve that end by acknowledging why the families would see this location would be in poor taste and build it in New York, away from Ground Zero even though they legally don't have to. That would show their sympathy to the victims' families and still allow them to build their mosque as a facility to welcome Muslims and non-Muslims but in that location it will only continue to divide people. They would also be able to point to the facility as an example of their compassion and respect for the victims' families as they use the facility to heal anti-Muslim sentiment.

There are also questions about where the money is coming from which I don't think has been verified but knowing that would go a long way towards knowing how the mosque will actually be operated. There are some accusations out there which should be either confirmed or refuted by actually investigating those allegations. It would have no legal standing to prevent it's construction unless it was funded by a terrorist or terrorist organization or something extreme like that. Which I'm not suggesting it is funded by terrorists at all, that's just the only thing related to funding that could prevent it from being built. Either way, it should be investigated so that that aspect of it can be laid to rest.

My question references the fact that they could still apply to the New York State Historical Preservation Office for inclusion of this building on the National Register of Historic Places since the Landmark Commission is a separate entity from the NYSHPO. If they don't apply for that designation from NYSHPO then are they still hate-filled?

-- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 1:18 PM

Mike,

Based on every article I've read this was before the Landmark Commission which is a separate entity from the New York State Historical Preservation Office. The NYSHPO would go through the National Park Service which typically has a broader definition of what is deemed historical. If a building goes on the National Registry then the interior can be protected even if they don't specifically address it in the application because it covers the whole building, inside and out and the land that it sits on.

"The reason I asked if you knew is because there are a lot of people out there that don't know that what is planned is a Muslim center that has a mosque..."

Yep, I knew. I don't know what people or shows omitted that but I watch a variety of them and I've heard that it was also a cultural/community center on various programs on FOX, CNN, ABC and NBC. I haven't seen anything about it on CBS, PBS or C-span so I can't speak to their station but they are the only other news stations I get.

I just assumed you knew what I meant but I'm glad I could clarify that.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 1:35 PM

@mc1 Incorrect, laws have been around nearly as long as civilization itself. One only has to look to the cradle of life and clay tablets found from there to understand.

I'm not talking about common sense laws. Not killing each other ect. This should simply be common sense for people. If you aren't able to comprehend these without scripture you have far worse issues to deal with.

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 5:48 PM

G.I.,

"Well it must be a fine world you live in."

The people I see and talk to everyday are not xenophobic and I don't see problems where they don't exist. I could always try telling people what they are "really thinking" if I thought they were xenophobic despite the fact they don't speak or act that way. I just don't want to live in such a pessimisstic world where I have to assume the worst in people simply to justify my own beliefs. I see a majority of people every day doing just the opposite of what you suspect them of doing so why would I assume otherwise?

I don't know how many different ways or times I have to say that I'm not talking about this mosque being stopped on legal grounds. I'm talking about basic human decency. Nobody opposes the building of the mosque, only the location. Therefore, all the power lies in the hands of the ones who are building it. Everything I have said about why they should respect the families still rests in their hands and nobody else.

I believe, Jesus was about humbling yourself so I doubt he would humble himself by building a giant community center and mosque. Jesus was Jewish so I only know what he'd do in a Jewish place of worship based on the Bible but many of these community centers in religious places end up being rented out for things like bake sales, financial seminars and anyone who needs a large space. In which case, you would see the not so peaceful side of Jesus. Not really pertinent to the argument though.

Damu,

Baylonian law is the oldest recorded law around along with their system of courts. The laws and punishments are far from where they are today but they are the earliest system of law and they could be considered "sand peoples" as you so eloquently stated. Much of what you see in current law is an evolution of their system which was also religiously motivated.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 6:26 PM

I love your stance on individual rights Mike. Now that the judge has declared that marriage should have no parameters as to infringe on anyones individual rights, I look forward to a full pardon of Warren Jefgs. I alao look forward to the legalization of polygamy. Talk about denying them their individual rights! These people have been forced underground for years. While gaus are freely accepted everywhere. I wish I was a lawyer for the polygamists right now...talk about a slam dunk and a half!

-- Posted by Justin76 on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 12:57 PM

Right on cue we have Justin with the worst case scenario to everything. Will any of it happen. Very unlikely since there isn't a movement to legalize polygamy. But leave it to people such as Justin to always go worst case scenario.

Actually Justin if you actually read the judge's decision you will plainly see that nowhere in his ruling did he "marriage should have no parameters as to infringe on anyones individual rights". But as always facts don't really get in your way of trying to spin something good into something evil and doomsday scenario.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 1:24 PM

You people just don't get it. You know gay people and have gay friends, so screw everyone else. The arguement you have made for them should be applied for polygamy too. At least its heterosexual, the way nature works. Why is my argument worst case? Maybe I think yours is. If I can tolerate gays i can tolerate polygamy even moreso.

Gi, you are incredibly ignorant to use your lazy bigot line. Not surprised tho. Maybe you are a bigot. What's wrong with polygamy anyway?

-- Posted by Justin76 on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 2:01 PM

You know Justin I would almost believe you if I didn't have this long list of your previous posts showing your hatred or at the very least extreme dislikeness for anyone that doesn't fit your worldview. Good try though. I know you are attempting the wallis approach but you aren't very good at it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 11:04 PM

Your own statements show how transparent your argument is, Justin. Claiming you tolerate gays right after saying what they did was unnatural. Sorry but that is not tolerance.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 11:06 PM

To make things clear which I know I will have to do again and again since the new theme here seems to be either not reading my posts or just making up what I have said ... marriage to me is about people loving people. I happen to be in a monogamous heterosexual marriage. It works for me. For other people they fall in love with someone of the same sex, it works for them to marry someone of the same sex. For other people they will fall in love with multiple people and that kind of marriage will work for them. If cousins fall in love and want to get married who am I to stand in their way.

That's tolerance, not saying you tolerate what they do but they shouldn't be allowed to get married and what they do is unnatural. It's flat out intolerance.

People like to make the claim (and it goes with racism as well) that those yelling the loudest about tolerance are actually the ones that are most intolerant. That's just silly and trying to sway the focus. It's a case of protesting to much. If you have to go as far as saying that those calling other people intolerant are actually the ones intolerant, then you have the problem with tolerance.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 11:15 PM

If homosexuals want to marry, let them. Let them go to the Justice of Peace and get married. Just do not let the government force churches to do it. That is a marriage God will not sanctify.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 11:39 PM

What does it matter where they get married. Last I checked I don't remember and court cases or any cases what-so-ever of any church being forced to give a gay wedding.

How do you know this anyways CPB? I don't remember anywhere in the Bible where God said that he would only sanctify straight marriages. Is there a hidden book I am unaware of?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Aug 8, 2010, at 12:47 AM

Since all references in the Bible are between man and woman, God's command, therefore, is marriage between man and woman.

Can you prove otherwise?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Aug 8, 2010, at 8:59 AM

Justin - GI isn't worth your time.

By the Way - Nice meeting you at the Nelson Ceremony. All of these guys flip you a lot of crap but there you are serving the community.

These guys - GI and Senior are just anti everything.

Mike is a good guy - he is just to liberal but still a good guy.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Aug 8, 2010, at 9:32 AM

Sorry CPB but that does not even remotely come close to proving that God said he would only sanctify marriage between a man and a woman. Your own post does not prove your point.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Aug 8, 2010, at 9:55 AM

Actually Mike, my post proves everything. We have had this argument before, which I showed as my proof, the scriptures in the Bible directing us not to fall into homosexuality. You, on the other hand, have failed to show any evidence God approves of homosexual marriages/unions. Since we are debating the Scriptures, and not mans point of view, I say again, show me the proof God approves of homosexual marriages/unions.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Aug 8, 2010, at 1:04 PM

GIs point aside, which is correct. The Bible is man's interpretation of God's word, not God's word directly.

"show me the proof God approves of homosexual marriages/unions."

Show me proof that God doesn't or that God only approves of marriages/unions.

No, CPB you have not proven your point. Let's forget for one second about your change of debate from God only sanctifying marriages of a man to a woman to God not approving of homosexuality (which isn't technically possible since the word homosexuality didn't exist until the 1800s, let's just leave that aside for a moment), you original comment which I asked you to prove is that God only sanctifies heterosexual marriages.

You have not proven that point as of yet. You continue to put the burden of proof on me, even though you originally made the comment. I do, though, get a kick out of your argument that because I didn't disprove your point, you automatically win and therefore don't have to prove your point.

Not entirely true. Okay here is my proof, there is not mention in the Bible, anywhere, that God only sanctifies marriages between a man and a woman. One main reason is that at the beginning of this religion there weren't even established churches as of yet. That notwithstanding, can you show me a book, scripture, even a verse that states that God only sanctifies marriages between man and woman. Otherwise your comment is nothing more than your opinion.

Final point which GI has already touched on, even if we do take the sciptures as Gods word it is man's interpretation of what those scriptures mean. Holy men of the Christian faith in the early 1900s used the Bible to show that God did not approve of blacks and whites marrying.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Aug 8, 2010, at 2:37 PM

Here is a great article by a Reverend by the name of Mel White. He happens to not only be openly homosexual but has studied the Bible most of his life. He has a Master's and PhD from, as he says, a conservative biblical seminary. I believe he has a better understanding of what the Bible actually says than every single blogger and poster on this website.

Take some time to read it and don't just simply refuse to read it because he is openly gay:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosex...

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Aug 8, 2010, at 2:56 PM

I would also like to add a few words from the attourney that successfully argued this case in California. His name is Ted Olson. His previous well known court case was Bush v. Gore in which he argued for the Bush side:

He said that the judge in this case was being judicially responsible because he was following the Constitution.

When he was asked, not surprisingly by Chris Wallace, where the right to same-sex marriage was in the Constitution he asked where the right to interracial marriage was in the Constitution.

"The Supreme Court has looked at marriage and has said that the right to marry is a fundamental right for all citizens. So you call it interracial marriage and then you could prohibit it, no? The Supreme Court said no. The same thing here," explained Olson.

"The judge after hearing three weeks of testimony and full day of closing arguments and listening to experts from all over the world concluded that the denial of the right to marry to these individuals in California hurt them and did not advance the cause of opposite sex marriage," Olson continued.

"This is what judges are expected to do. It's not judicial activism. It's judicial responsibility in the classic sense."

By the way Olson is a conservative and when Wallace asked him that if he was a conservative why would he support gay marriage:

"We believe that a conservative value is stable relationships and stable community and loving individuals coming together and forming a basis that is a building block of our society, which includes marriage," said Olson.

In the end, for me, the question is simple. Which is more important, long lasting relationships where both people are happy no matter their sexual preference or denying people their right to marry simply because you don't approve of it?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Aug 8, 2010, at 5:04 PM

Having read Rev. Mel White's theories of the Bible was quite entertaining. Especially, when held under the scrutiny of context. As usual, every time a false teacher, and Mr. White is a false teacher, quotes scripture, it is always taken out of context. If you don't trust me, test it yourself. Mr. White claims to be an evangelical, which to him would mean Jesus is in fact God, he will have known, through Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus came here to fulfill the Laws of Moses.

Guillermo, we have already had the discussion of slavery, and I cannot tell if you are simply trying to stir up another argument over it, or if you are a know-it-all who everyone has wore thin of you, or perhaps you are just a simple closed minded, hate filled bigot.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Aug 8, 2010, at 9:35 PM

Guillermo, prove it, not just you parroting the thoughts and ideas of others. Let's see what YOU have to offer.

Molly123, I have no objections at all if homosexuals want to marry. Let the states allow it. Just don't force the church to do so.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Aug 8, 2010, at 11:27 PM

CPB this is the second time you have said not to force the church to marry gays. Where is this going on that you feel compelled to say it over and over again?

The only rulings I have heard is declaring that gays have the right to marry not that churches have to marry gays so what gives.

Oh okay I see this man went to school specifically to study the Bible and become a minister and even has a PhD but because what he says is contrary to what you believe you completely discount what he has to say? Don't take this personal but I'll take the word of a minister that has actually gone to seminary over yours every time.

I am still waiting for your proof that God stated that he only sanctified man-woman marriages.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Aug 9, 2010, at 9:44 AM

G.I.,

Go back and read my post. I have never said "xenophobia and racism don't really exist anymore". I said that people who hold those views are in the minority. If we had over 150 million xenophobes and racists running around this country then everyone in the country would witness this on a regular basis just like they did decades ago when those attitudes actually were in the majority.

I also never said there was no anti-Muslim sentiment out there. So where you're coming up with that, I don't know. The families are upset because an extremist faction of the Muslim religion killed their loved ones as a part of a holy war and they want to come in and build a mosque to "heal the anti-Muslim" sentiment?!" How do they do that?... They don't refute the claims that there is funding for the mosque coming from a guy who refuses to denounce a terrorist organization and wants the same type of Muslim-based law that the terrorists want everyone to live by. Every step they have taken so far, goes against anything that would help to heal any anti-Muslim sentiment that would be out there. The whole argument about anti-Muslim sentiment is that not all Muslims hold the same views as those who acted on 9/11. However, there are some Muslims that do and when a powerful Muslim refuses to condemn a terrorist organization and wants to build a mosque near Ground Zero, well you do the math to figure out what the families are going to think. I was also stating that building a mosque near Ground Zero with complete disregard for the families of 9/11 is only going to be counterproductive to any anti-Muslim sentiment.

"Two problems: 1) simply because one doesn't express xenophobic attitudes in their day to day interaction with you does not mean one is not xenophobic; 2) you and your experiences are not necessarily generalizable to America writ large."

Regarding problem 1, that would mean that I would have to assume a person is xenophobic and disregard the fact that they have not said or done a single thing to even remotely suggest they hold that view and that, G.I., would make me deaf and blind.

Regarding problem 2, I can concede that since I'm just one person but that means that you would also have to concede that your experiences are not necessarily generalizable to America writ large.

I just approach people differently. I assume the best in people until they prove otherwise. You, on the other hand, seem to assume the worst in people until they can prove otherwise. That is a bitter world to live in and you can hypothesize all you want about why I believe the way I do but I do, and nothing you say on a small-time blog can change that.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Aug 9, 2010, at 11:54 AM

G.I.,

Your paranoid delusions are truly frightening. If everyone thought like you, everybody would be suspicious of everyone around them at all times. Nobody would trust anyone else until someone had proven themselves to everyone else. Yes, my experiences are different than yours and nothing will change that but it's unimaginable for me to hold such a grim view of the world. You're well on your way to becoming a bitter, cranky old man, suspicious of everyone around him. Good luck with that.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Aug 9, 2010, at 12:45 PM

G.I.,

My position that you wanted to attack was that my experience was not reflective of America but your experience somehow was closer to what is going on in America. Arguing something like that is bound to go nowhere, fast. I acknowledged YOUR experiences were different than MINE because you were discussing your experiences and justifying them with examples from others who have had your same experience. I could do the same with people across America who have had similiar experiences to my own but that will not satisfy you.

Why you think I would deny that a foreigner or minority would have different experiences than myself is beyond me. I don't recall you specifically asking for such a general clarification from me or why you would need one. Especially, after I've stated we can have different experiences. You seem to be trying to pull something out of nothing with that one.

I never denied xenophobia existed. In fact, I acknowledged that it existed but that it existed in a minority of people. When you start thinking people are xenophobic despite their words and actions then you will be suspect of everyone. If I lived the way you do, anybody would be fair game if they didn't prove themselves to me. I don't have such a pessimisstic view of the world and I don't have such an inflated opinion of myself that I believe everyone should be suspect unless they have proven themselves to me.

Does xenophobia exist? Yes. Do minorities have different but valid experiences than me? Yes. However, if xenophobia was somehow being hidden from view from the "white majority" then why would they feel the need to hide it unless their xenophobic views were in the majority too? They wouldn't because they would have no reason to hide their views. This is what happened when racist attitudes were in the majority decades ago but now they are in the minority. Nobody would hide a view they thought was shared by the majority of people.

I could never become suspicious of someone for doing anything or holding particular views that are not backed up by the fact that their words and actions show absolutely no evidence that justifies such suspicion. It would be wrong to harbor such suspicions without any better reason than thinking I know what they are thinking despite their actions that don't support that suspicion. You think we should be suspicious of others for what is theoretically possible and not on the merits of their words or actions and that I will not do.

You will continue to think xenophobia is lurking arund every turn in the minds of any random person you meet. You can't argue how someone sees the world they live in. You can only recognize the difference between the way they see it and the way you see it. I'm sorry you see America that way but it's clear to me that engaging in a fruitless argument is not going to change that. So I'm not trying to convince you that I am right or you are wrong. I'm only stating why I will not see the world you do.

It comes down to the same recurring reasons I stated earlier. I do have different experiences than you but I would not bring myself down to the level of assuming anybody and everybody is secretly xenophobic with absolutely no evidence shown by those people to back it up. If they revealed themselves through their words or actions to be xenophobic then yes, I would make that assumption but without any evidence to support it, I can't hold such suspicions of them. Not just because it would be wrong for me to do so but because I don't think that way. If someone doesn't do something wrong, I don't automatically assume they will or have done something wrong. Technically, any person is capable of just about anything but I don't make assumptions about them because it's theoretically possible. I judge the person by the evidence of their character, not my own personal views of what I think they "secretly" believe.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Aug 9, 2010, at 4:58 PM

I don't remember which blog I wrote where the topic of the mosque in New York came up. But there has been a lot of discussion about whether the building that they are tearing down to build the center is not all that historical. It used to be a Burlington Coat Factory.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Aug 12, 2010, at 10:32 PM

It is refreshing to see President Obama flex his muscles once in awhile. One the issue of the Muslim Center being built a few blocks away from Ground Zero (or as the right and Fox News called it the mosque being built at Ground Zero) the President reminded all of us that one of our basic rights in this country is Freedom of Religion.

Thank you Mr. President

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100814/ts_...

Of course now all the birthers and conspiracy theorists heads will start exploding that Obama dared to support the Muslims.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Aug 14, 2010, at 3:18 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)