For years I have watched the right respond to the debate over same-sex marriage by throwing out the NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association)-Bestiality card. The argument basically goes that if gay marriage is a form of non-traditional marriage, legalizing it begins the slippery slope to other forms of non-traditional marriage, thereby opening the door for people to marry children and animals.
The fundamental flaws with that analogy are plenty, starting with the problem of consensual relations, which neither a child nor animal can grant.
But the right actually has a much bigger problem, both on the same-sex marriage front and the religious freedom front – interracial marriage. While opponents of same-sex marriage like to point to “traditional” marriage as being between a man and wife, in point of fact in this country traditional marriage was actually defined as being between a man and a woman of the same race.
In fact, the parallels do not end there. While one can rightly argue that both gender and race are immutable traits, the choice to marry someone of another race is just that – a choice.
So the question is, if you have a Christian who believes it part of Christian doctrine to prohibit interracial marriages, would that kind of discrimination be permissible and acceptable under religious freedom? If not, how do you draw the line between people who believe it is a sin to marry someone of one’s own gender and those who believe it is a sin to marry a person of another race?
This is not just a hypothetical either. There is a long history in this country of prohibitions and taboo against interracial marriage. In fact, one of the greatest sins in the Old South was a black man having relations with a white woman. It would almost certainly get him thrown in jail and lynched by a white mob.
For a long time, Christians in this country believed that the Bible proscribed interracial marriage. This is not in a distant past either.
It was not until 1967 that the US Supreme Court finally declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. Despite that, Alabama kept a law on the books until 2000.
Polling done back in 2011 performed by Public Policy Polling found that 46 percent of likely Republican primary voters in Mississippi believed that interracial marriage should be illegal, compared to 40 percent who said it should be legal. Fourteen more percent were undecided. Similar findings would appear in Alabama.
Back in 1980, just three percent of couples were of mixed race, according to census data. Thirty years later, the number was still relatively low, but had increased to 1 in 12. I remember in a class in high school, we watched a recording of a TV show ‒ I think it was Geraldo ‒ and he had on these white supremacists. The white supremacists put it to the audience members that, if they are so much for equality, would they want their daughters to marry a black person. I was surprised to see that the answer from one was that marriage was different than basic rights about non-discrimination. The show was recorded was from the late 1980s, but my guess was that it demonstrated that even whites in the 1980s who were adamantly supportive of equal rights, and appalled by the white supremacist position, were nevertheless uncomfortable with intermarriage.
While intermarriage and same-sex marriage seem to share a number of similar traits, not everyone agrees that the two issues are so parallel. Ross Douthat, a conservative New York Times columnist, argued in a recent column that the “debate about race was very specific to America, modernity, the South.” He added, “Bans on interracial marriage were generally a white supremacist innovation, not an inheritance from Christendom or common law.”
He continued, “The slave owners and segregationists had scriptural arguments, certainly. But they were also up against one of the Bible’s major meta-narratives — from the Israelites in Egypt to Saint Paul’s ‘neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free.’”
There is a problem with that argument, even though I think he’s right in terms of the Bible’s view on interracial marriage – and that is it is not the authoritative word of the Bible, but rather the opinions of local churches and local adherents of the Bible.
Under Indiana law, no judge is going to scour the Bible, and bring in expert witnesses to determine the difference between an individual’s take on what the Bible tells them and official Biblical canon.
That is where the murkiness of the law comes into play. What is religious freedom and what is discrimination?
When in doubt, perhaps you can simply substitute the phrase “Interracial Marriage” for “Same-Sex Marriage” and determine if the practice is discriminatory.
I think you end up in a very different place:
Can a church legally prohibit an interracial couple from marrying? We see an article from November 2011 where one Kentucky church voted to ban interracial couples from its membership. That lasted about a month before the church overturned their decision.
Can a pizza place, on religious grounds, refuse to serve pizza to an interracial couple?
Can a cake company be compelled to write a message on their cake congratulating a couple on their interracial marriage?
Can a facility refuse to rent their facility to an interracial couple getting married?
The only substantial difference I can see between the two acts is that presently the churches believe that interracial marriage is not prohibited by the Bible but the churches believe that same-sex marriage is. However, in the recent past, and even the present, that has not always been the case.
The problem with defining religious freedom is who decides whether the practice adheres to the tenets of the religion or, in the case of interracial marriage, whether the churches (or religious leaders) are not in fact distorting the tenets for their own religious or political purposes.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The “the NAMBLA-Bestiality card”? That’s quite a card.
I listen to a fair amount of talk radio, much of it right-leaning, and I’ve mostly heard such a card played ironically or as a joke. Lumping right-leaning folk in with intolerant, bible-belt, dumb-ass racists, all under the label of “the right” is quite a low-brow tactic, no matter which “side” employs the tactic.
By the way, you’re all invited to my wedding next month between me, a squirrel, and a brick. Pot luck.
Or lumping Presidential candidates and congressmen — http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/republicans-predict-fraud-bestiality-if-gay-marriage-is-legalized/
— with intolerant, bible-belt, dumb-ass racists is a terribly low-brow tactic. I could also add Huckabee and Pat Robertson, and could probably find any number of others.
In the article, and perhaps in the first two comments, am seeing “right-wing”=religious=intolerant.
Yeah, right. What groups led in the ‘civil rights’ movement? Primarily, religious Christians and Jews. What groups have been most vocal about eliminating the death penalty? Christians (particularly Catholics), and Jews.
David’s arguments/flavor, smell of someone who is not well versed in religious beliefs/morals. Might as well say that the SC cop represents all males, all whites, all police officers, bent on killing blacks for any reason they choose. Perhaps that IS the point of the article?
“David’s arguments/flavor, smell of someone who is not well versed in religious beliefs/morals. ”
explain
The arguments against gay marriage are nearly always based on religious precepts, and the opposition almost entirely comes from people who would generally be considered right-wing. That doesn’t mean that all religious people oppose gay marriage, or all right-wing people oppose gay marriage.
“… nearly always based on religious precepts… ” Or, the words found in the “old Testament”, or other “religious” documents are twisted to fit someone’s prejudices… an example: the ‘old testament’ prohibitions against homosexual behavior and infidelity, and the punishments for each, are basically the same.
One concept of many religions is to ‘be fruitful and multiply’. Prior to the advent of modern medical techniques, that clearly was not possible in a same-sex relationship. Even then, requires a third party. Sounds like, 2000+ years ago, prohibitions of same-sex relationships were “common sense”.
some of the conservatives on here like ben carson.
here is what ben carson said on a hannity show: “CARSON: Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition. So he, it’s not something that is against gays, it’s against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.”
I think those references are unfortunate although they make sense backing the point.
I think the reference that we should talk about is polygamy. From a societal and biological perspective, polygamy makes more sense than does gay marriage.
But those that would argue against polygamy while being for gay marriage would seem to be quite hypocritical.
the biggest problem with polygamy is the asymmetry of power, the abusive component, the lack of true consent, and the exploitation of underage girls. of all of the strawmen, polygamy is probably the only one where there is a legitimate point and a legitimate argument for legalization.
Linking gay Americans to NAMBLA only “makes sense” if you are trying to smear them as a group. It’s a reprehensible linkage.
This article is also a straw dog argument. You want to post your hypotheticals but then turn around and say other’s hypotheticals aren’t relevant.
here’s a question – what do you see as the fundamental difference between the argument against gay marriage and the argument against interracial marriage?
Ok, I’ll bite. Interracial marriages are typically between a man and a woman. “Gay” (funny euphemism for “same sex”) are not. What is the fundamental difference between an apple and rhetoric?
okay. allowing interracial marriages expanded the definition of marriage from one between man/ woman of the same race, to man/ woman regardless of race. gay marriage expands the definition from one between man/ woman to adult/ adult (non-related).
So, DP, “expansion” is good, in and of itself?
Perhaps “marriage” should be further ‘expanded’ to provide for those under 16 (‘espoused’ in many places in the world), multiple spouses (the US government over-reached its puritanical religious freedoms in ending that practice among Mormons and others), ‘open marriages’ where anyone can have sex with whoever they please, but still get the tax, other benefits of “civil” marriage (which is, absent a religious/faith system is a “contractural relationship”)…. Based on the logic you’ve brought to this subject to date, why not? Let’s change all those “silly” laws!
That would be the “progressive” thing to do!
Already legal in many states with a court order.
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marriage_laws/
I particularly like this New Hampshire provision:
It demonstrates the highly arbitrary nature of our laws and definitions of marriage.
So Don, is the task to just dig up obscure state laws to make a point? You do know that there are pages of obscure and weird laws in every state that just have not been removed from the books but are never enforced.
If you ask the question, then you missed the point.
hpierce – you’re the one inserting good/ bad. i used no such terms. i think the question has to do with the imposition of religious morales on a society where we have church and state separation.
The important question is not the fundamental difference between the arguments for or against gay marriage and / or an interracial ones, but rather the fundamental difference between a religious rite and a civil right. Once the government decided to support marriage between two adults (through beneficial tax and benefits considerations among others), there was no constitutionally valid justification to limit those benefits based on religion, race or gender.
The different religious institutions are free to restrict their rite of marriage within the confines of their religious beliefs however they choose, and they should expect to be able to do so without coercion or interference from the government. The government in turn should provide the same civil rights to all citizens regardless of religion, race or gender (among others), and we should expect it to do so without coercion or interference from religious institutions.
Ah, a voice of reason.
Wish I had written that. I particularly like the difference between ‘rite’ and ‘right’. Perfect. Have never opposed ‘civil unions’, with all the civil/tax rights associated with them, but to my belief system “marriage” is a rite, a spiritual, physical, loving and enduring commitment that is between a man and a woman. I am all for ‘same-sex’ committed civil unions being recognized by government. And treated equally for all civil/tax, etc, purposes.
Well done Mark West!
Note: The following comments do not represent the thoughts and opinions of the previous poster.
One-sided tolerance is simply another form of intolerance.
It is interesting to me how the good-bad / victim-persecutor perception is changing before our eyes. It reminds me of the US after 9-11. There was this outpouring of empathy for us over the attack. And then we went too far to “punish” those that we believed harmed us and even attacked those that didn’t really pose any risk of harm. And as a result the good-bad / victim-persecutor perception reversed.
That is well underway for the gay rights crusaders. I predicted it. I predicted it simply because of the irrational arguments over gay marriage versus protected equal civil unions. It is really not that hard of a puzzle to figure out. Since the gay rights crusaders blew past rational arguments, it was clear that their drive would not subside with the win. They were out for blood and are still out for blood. That feeling of being not normal, of not mainstream, of being looked at as different. Those are things that everyone feels from time to time. But most of us lack a well-funding crusade to seek retribution for those bad days.
I expect the crusade to continue until the majority of voters no longer have empathy for gays and gay rights. They will become the “bad guys”. They are already well on their way.
And when the final majority shift occurs, the gay crusade will actually achieve what it apparently wants… To be considered normal humans perusing their own selfish interests.
agreed but that still doesn’t answer the question as to what citizens can do within the context of religious in terms of the right to access public accommodations.
That is interesting because in my belief system, “marriage” is a rite, a spiritual, physical, loving and enduring commitment that is between two adults.
I wonder hpierce, when you see a newspaper announcement of a couple celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary, do you quietly celebrate their success, or do you first wait to see if they share in your ‘belief system?’ Should a union between two individuals be less worthy of celebration and respect simply because it did not occur under the auspices of our own chosen denomination? Should we look at wedding invitations and say – ‘I really enjoy that couple and wish to celebrate with them, alas, if only they worshiped at my mosque (or believed in my God)?’
I celebrate with those who choose to share in a commitment to live their lives together, regardless of under which belief system that commitment was made. In fact, I think if I were to say that only those who shared my beliefs may truly be ‘married,’ I would also be saying that only those who shared in my beliefs would have any reason to celebrate or respect my own marriage. By devaluing someone else’s union in this way, I would only be devaluing my own.
To Mark West’s 5:27 post: Interesting… you hit on a pivotal moment in my thinking… ~1974… I attended an ‘event’, at the Newman Center (Catholic Student Community) where a gay male couple (Dignity USA, now) shared their experiences. One was “flaming” gay, the other, not. They were monogamous, and had been together for 15 years. It was then that I realized that loving, spiritual commitment was fully consistent with my belief system. I do have a problem calling it ‘marriage’, but I realized then, and now, that they should have ALL civil rights as a “couple”. Would I “celebrate” them now having their 56th anniversary of being together? No… didn’t know them that well. Would I respect it? Hell yes. My spouse and I have only been together 40 years.
I guess the difference is actually one you pointed out… the “rite” of marriage, vs. the “right” to be recognized as a ‘unit’/civil union by the civil/government system. I have no problem with the latter. Haven’t for 40 years.
Post of 11:01 demonstrates that at least one poster here understands the fundamental principle of the separation of church and state.
Yes, always have, but too many want to change “church” for their view of “state”, and vice versa.
The former want to malign “church” folk for their beliefs/opinions. Some want to ‘co-opt’ religious terms to fit their secular terms.
i don’t think
anyonemost people wants the church to change their views, the question is what happens when citizens operate in the world that is not their church.“… the question is what happens when citizens operate in the world that is not their church.” Exactly. Like when ‘citizens’ try to dictate what religious folk ‘have to believe’, through civic pressure.
Your reference to “church” is interesting. That’s a term usually used for where Christians congregate. You seem to have pointedly left out synagogues, ashrams, mosques, etc. Your pointed strikeout is also interesting. Am guessing you are…
While this article pretends to throw religion under the bus, I think that does not take into consideration the people, only the rules makers who “want to pass a law”.
In my span of years on the planet, I have seen attitudes change except in one area: People. They wish happy and successful lives for themselves and their kids.
I would say desegregation has fostered more interracial relationships, because now children grow up together and get to know each other as classmates. Many of them grow up in the same neighborhood. This means they even have the same socioeconomic position in life. Parents want their children to do as well as they can in life, and universities are also breeding grounds (pun intended) for successful matches.
No more than arranged marriages, this is the way some of these interracial matches happen. Where the resistance happens is if the rich kids grab a low income mate, or in college you really don’t know where the other person “comes from”. It is easier, and the parents try to instill that in their children, to pick someone with common background, even high school, than to pick up an ex-con, thief, parolee, or someone from just the next town. Religion is a strong influence in some families, but all this is included in it.
i don’t read this article throwing religion under the bus, only societal rules buttressed by people’s religious sentiments.
Nice ‘spit-ball’.
Most folks seem to forget that traditional anti-Semitism is a Religious based belief.
I well remember my next door neighbor in the 1960’s showing me passages from his 3rd grade (?) Catholic School text book about the Jews killing Christ.
Of course anti-Semitism is no longer “kosher”, but would a similar anti-someone discrimination be OK? If we weight the right to discriminate based on who the target of the discrimination is, you have a circular argument that is the definition of discrimination (It’s not OK to discriminate against Jews, but its OK in regards to gays, atheists and pagans).
Personal beliefs and actions on how to live one’s personal life are one things, but at some point you cross a line…..Is it really “Freedom when sanction corporations to have force employees to discriminate–against employee beliefs—based on the bosses religion?
Do the employee’s religious freedom mean less than the bosses? Or do loose that freedom when you become employed?
This does this past history’s test if we substitute “Jew” for “Gay”?
Good points, I was about to say the same things, aaahirsch8
I was thinking of all the businesses that hire only the people they want as long as they are like them, when the business opportunities are so great by having a diverse workforce? But Davis is not like the Midwest, or a non-college town.
Oh, but they finally gave that up, in 2000.
Only if ‘gay’ is a religion, or race.
I rarely hear anyone referring to NAMBLA in respect to the gay marriage debate. The primary response I have heard is that the definition of marriage for hundreds or thousands of years is a religious union between one man, and one woman.
Yes, some follow that if gay marriage is allowed, they why not marry three people in union? Aren’t we discriminating by not allowing three to marry? or four?
I have also heard the argument that marriage was a construct created to provide and protect children, and since until recently it has been impossible for a same-sex couple to have children, there was no religious / societal need; and a civil union could fill the gap.
the only reason you rarely hear people referring to nambla in the gay marriage debate is that you aren’t paying attention. when i googled it this morning, even your favorite candidate, ben carson, mentioned it.
Carson is a [edit]. What’s your REAL point?
[moderator]No name-calling please.
k… I over stepped when a ‘radical’ was cited as ‘main stream’. Good catch, moderator…
TBD
“there was no religious / societal need; and a civil union could fill the gap.”
It is interesting to me that you have chosen, by phrasing, to group religious and societal together, while separating “civil union”. It would seem to me that in a country that has chosen to separate church and state, that state ( civil) and societal needs should be grouped together, and religious needs should be seen as separate. With modern reproductive technology, the societal interest in “be fruitful and multiply” is no longer tied to a “one man and one woman” model.
As for the family structure in which children do the best, as a former anthropologist, I would posit that this is not the nuclear family, but rather an extended family that provides the greatest stability and consistent presence of adult guidance for each child. We have chosen to exalt a family structure that does not provide stability for children unless there is a single earner making enough to support any children above the poverty level. Unfortunately, our economy frequently does not support this model for the majority of the population.
The Hillary Clinton “It Takes a Village” model has failed in urban America, and elsewhere. The alternative lifestyle topic was debated a decade ago in San Francisco.
“Last week, KGO radio talk-show host Pete Wilson made some comments about a child born to Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who is gay, and Rebecca Goldfader, who is a lesbian. As Wilson put it, a baby is “not an experiment. It is not an opportunity to see how far you can carry your views on parenting, alternative lifestyles or diversity in family structures.”
“And: “Look around you, folks. You think the high divorce rate in this country has been, generally speaking, good for kids? So, why not start out divorced? See if that’ll work.” (While I am sure Dufty’s daughter is a beautiful child, I, too, wonder if this Instant Family will last.)
“Wilson supports same-sex marriage and gay parenting. Doesn’t matter. Last week, S.F. Supervisors Tom Ammiano, Chris Daly, Ross Mirkarimi and Aaron Peskin held a press conference at which they called Wilson “homophobic” and demanded that he resign his job.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1720861/posts
TBD “there was no religious / societal need; and a civil union could fill the gap.”
It is interesting to me that you have chosen, by phrasing, to group religious and societal together, while separating “civil union”. It would seem to me that in a country that has chosen to separate church and state, that state ( civil) and societal needs should be grouped together, and religious needs should be seen as separate. With modern reproductive technology, the societal interest in “be fruitful and multiply” is no longer tied to a “one man and one woman” model.
As for the family structure in which children do the best, as a former anthropologist, I would posit that this is not the nuclear family, but rather an extended family that provides the greatest stability and consistent presence of adult guidance for each child. We have chosen to exalt a family structure that does not provide stability for children unless there is a single earner making enough to support any children above the poverty level. Unfortunately, our economy frequently does not support this model for the majority of the population.
David’s article seems to make the point that opposition to cross racial marriages is a conservative white problem. I do not believe it is a white thing. Many racial groups 30, 40 or 50 years ago opposed cross racial marriages.
Significant populations of all racial groups, particularly those who strongly identify by their race, still are strongly opposed to interracial unions. Same is true of folk who strongly identify with their religious, cultural, political ‘identities’, if their child, sibling, etc. appear to be getting ‘serious’ with someone outside ‘their circle’. Don’t fully understand it, but know “it is”. Reminds me of the old line, “I have no problem with [choose] people, but I wouldn’t want my son/daughter to marry one”.
It’s a “white problem” in the sense that the laws were enacted by white people to prevent interracial marriage. Whether groups shun such marriage is less concerning than the official laws.
OK, but wasn’t it mainly white legislators who removed those laws from the books? Or, do we just have to say white = evil?
The Supreme Court ruled those laws unconstitutional in 1967. It took Alabama until 2000 to remove their law from the books. White isn’t evil. But clearly some white politicians used their positions perniciously.
OK, white male justices. My bad.
And, David, I recall that a lot of states either removed the ‘ban on interracial marriage’ laws long before the SCOTUS action. Still, by white, male legislators. From wikipedia:
“Interracial marriage in the United States has been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, with many states choosing to legalize interracial marriage at much earlier dates.” [emphasis mine]
“The Supreme Court ruled those laws unconstitutional in 1967.” Your implication was that it originated with the 1967 SCOTUS decision. Deceptive, at best. BTW, often “clean-up” legislation to make state law conform to Federal decisions, which trumps state law, takes time. Arkansas and Indiana are only now looking at legislation to conform to Federal Law enacted in the early 90’s, and you’ve even ‘reported’ on that.
The ‘fact’ that a state didn’t take it off the books, after it was nullified by the SC decision, is irrevelant.
If the dominant race in America had been black, then it would have been mainly black legislators who enacted laws to prevent interracial marriage. And at this point in our civil rights advancement, I would bet that a dominant black population would be similarly tolerant of whites marrying into black families.
Would a dominant black culture in the US fought and died to free white slaves? Would a dominant black culture in the US protested and fought to enact civil rights laws that fixed most material practices of racial bias and discrimination against whites? Nobody can really know that. But what they can and should acknowledge is that the historical US white-dominated power did those things.
But your glass is still half empty with respect to that old dominant group.
I think much of what seems to drive your social criticism is some imbedded anger or frustration over the old dominant demographics. You seem to give a pass to the current behavior of the minority demographic and set a higher bar for the old majority demographic. I understand the caring impulses that drive this sort of response in many people (most that claim to be ideologically liberal), but there is a bit of disingenuous intellectualism, or else just plain ignorance, for admitting the current facts, and for weighing the big picture good and bad and pros and cons.
What has changed in this country is that the political party of the left has managed to bring together all minority groups and connected them with a subset of the dominant demographic group (white liberals) having a tendency to react strongly to perceptions of fairness. Call it the “left collective”. On the surface this change in dominant power structure would seem cause for celebration. However, what is has become is just a new, and more troubling, form of tyranny and oppression. It is a more troubling form because, first, the people contained within are more emotive and reactionary and narrow focused… but they are armed with soft-speech tools that hide their true aims. Also, the left collective surrounds itself with media-driven protection from a new secular bible of PC-correctness and speech-code rules… thereby halting meaningful dialog that would otherwise help optimize the path taken. And with these emotive, soft-speech-enabled, narrow focused aims… and with all the help from the protection of the media, the groups contained within this new left collective of tyrannical power are becoming more and more corrupted with that power, and they are over-reaching and causing great harm to others.
And to perpetuate that power you and others in this new dominant left collective power end up pointing backwards in history to try and gin up that old outrage over the previous dominant demographic… the method that was primarily leveraged to help get you where you are today.
See those white racist, homophobic, sexist, white bigots! Charge!!!
It is more than disappointing. The dream, the hope, the change. We were supposed to be better lead by the crusade of the left collective. Tolerance and inclusion where supposed to multiply. Secular morality was supposed to heal us and bring us more together. We were supposed to grow into a softer and more cooperative and collaborative society without all those hard edges of selfish conflict. Unfortunately the opposite has happened. We have discovered that the dominant left collective only talks a game of tolerance and inclusion. The truth is that is is much less tolerant and much less inclusive… and it is much more hard, divisive and nasty in practice. It professes more caring and love, but it is conditional and fake caring and love. In the end it just appears to be a bunch of selfish, biased and insecure people demanding they get their way while also getting attention.
I don’t know what will emerge to lead us all to a better tomorrow, but I do know that the left collective has completely blown its opportunity to do so. It is so disappointing.
Yes, the Left uses the allegation of racism as a Dog Whistle to stir up emotions, which leads to votes, money, and power.
BTW, does Jet Magazine still prohibit white women from being shown in photos? (A black friend tipped me off to this decades ago.)
I bet Frankly reads Mark Levine.
“Yes, the Left uses the allegation of racism as a Dog Whistle to stir up emotions, which leads to votes, money, and power.”
it doesn’t seem likely given the small number of black voters, low turnout, and smaller amounts of money. moreover most of this is not coming from official politician – although some are latching on – but rather from the activists who are more likely motivated by the issue rather than the politics of the issue.
“If the dominant race in America had been black, then it would have been mainly black legislators who enacted laws to prevent interracial marriage.”
and if your mother had testicles, she’d be your father.
TBD – I have not read Levine’s books. I rarely listen to his talk radio program… I have before driving up and down I5 using my XM radio. He is bright and entertaining and makes sense most of the time.
I love it when he goes on a tirade and his shrill voice rises in pitch. However, I sometimes have to change channels at those points because it gets on my wife’s nerves.
But I see his stuff as mostly common sense.
I think that is what appeals to the consumers of media branded as “conservative” by the left collective… it is mostly common sense stuff. It connects with the rational mind and more likely runs rough shod over the concern over hurting someone’s feelings.
Did you hear that the University of Michigan first decided to ban a showing of American Sniper over a small minority of Muslim students claiming that the showing would make them feel unsafe. And since then has reversed that decision over outrage from other students claiming bias.
I think liberals are waking up the sleeping giant of the population of common sense people that previously were silent. It is a good sign.
Ok funny guy prone to weird analogies… point to any black-dominated country that exists today that is a model of social and cultural and ethnic inclusion. If the US is as bad as you infer, then where is the model we should strive to be? Maybe you are thinking of utopia or Planet Zork?
let’s assume the us is the best in the world in this regard – do we drive home and break out the champagne?
Obama’s Mother in Law was concerned about his mixed background, but would have been more concerned if he were “completely white”.
http://theblacksphere.net/2015/03/michelle-obama-mom-dislikes-whites/#
What nation is more open?
Japan has highly restrictive immigration laws. Within the US, while whites had a dominant role in government, individual ethnic and religious groups have their own norms, rules, and taboos. I’ve been to synagogues that had not a single Asian, Latino, brown, or black face, in San Francisco, in the year 2000.
you’re making a weird argument. does it matter what nation is more open? this nation hasn’t fixed its racial problem.
We are one of the more open, more inclusive, diverse on the face of the earth. A lot of what the left decries as “racism” are the results of the failed social policies of the left, a failed War on Poverty, and the failure of Big Government.
Slavery didn’t destroy the traditional black family, Big Government took care of that.