Barack Obama -- for Randy
Emma
Randy, this is what I read in the Telegraph about
Barack Obama.
Some of what he says certainly
echoes what I read in the media here about
your right-wing denominations, and it's
what we were discussing in another thread.
Now -- as you know -- I'm generally a right wing
voter here, but social justice, poverty and healthcare
would be my priorities too, and they were the things that
Jesus majored on.
It's getting the balance right though, and
ensuring that there isn't a huge gap between
the rich and the poor.
Perhaps this is the man to do it?
This is what he said, and surely it's hard to disagree
with it...
(Btw, the Telegraph said that he was trying to put forward the
Bible's teachings on "social justice and tolerance as
a basis for more liberal social policies on issues
such as poverty, Aids and universal health care.")
Barack Obama quote:
"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used
to bring us together and faith started being used to drive
us apart," he told the national meeting of the United Church
of Christ, the liberal church of which he is a member.
"Faith got hijacked partly because the so-called leaders
of the Christian Right are all too eager to exploit what
divides us.
"At every opportunity they've told evangelical Christians
that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their
church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that
religious Americans care only about issues like
abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and
intelligent design."
"There was even a time when the Christian Coalition
determined that its number one legislative priority was
tax cuts for the rich. I don't know what Bible they're
reading, but it doesn't [match] my version."
(Daily Telegraph)
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
Emma
>
>
>Randy, this is what I read in the Telegraph about
>Barack Obama.
>Some of what he says certainly
>echoes what I read in the media here about
>your right-wing denominations, and it's
>what we were discussing in another thread.
>
Ah, he's also a convert to Christianity from
Islam. Excellent!
I wonder how that would play
out on the international stage? How would
Islamic countries view him? It would just be
another thing for them to get outraged about,
I suppose. More effigy and flag burning.
More "Death to America!".
Ho-hum.
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
Rob Strom
> In article <f5oac701...@drn.newsguy.com>, Emma says...
>
>
>
> >Randy, this is what I read in the Telegraph about
> >Barack Obama.
> >Some of what he says certainly
> >echoes what I read in the media here about
> >your right-wing denominations, and it's
> >what we were discussing in another thread.
>
> Ah, he's also a convert to Christianity from
> Islam. Excellent!
>
No. He was never Muslim.
His opponents tried to invent episodes of schooling in a Muslim
school in order to appeal to prejudice.
--
Rob Strom
Padraic Brown
>
>Randy, this is what I read in the Telegraph about
>Barack Obama.
>Some of what he says certainly
>echoes what I read in the media here about
>your right-wing denominations, and it's
>what we were discussing in another thread.
>
>Now -- as you know -- I'm generally a right wing
>voter here, but social justice, poverty and healthcare
>would be my priorities too, and they were the things that
>Jesus majored on.
>
>It's getting the balance right though, and
>ensuring that there isn't a huge gap between
>the rich and the poor.
>Perhaps this is the man to do it?
>
>This is what he said, and surely it's hard to disagree
>with it...
>
>(Btw, the Telegraph said that he was trying to put forward the
>Bible's teachings
That right there will largely kill his chances of ever getting
anywhere near the White House. At present, the Left in the US -- the
_Party_, not necessarily Democrat voters -- are anti-religion and
especially anti-Christian. He might as well state that, upon taking
over the presidency, his first and formost action will be to make
public the relationship the US Government has with alien governments
on other planets.
>on "social justice and tolerance as
>a basis for more liberal social policies on issues
>such as poverty, Aids and universal health care.")
And this will _certainly_ tie the Left's knickers in a twist. They
tend to pride themselves on their social policies and tolerance
(except tolerance of religious or conservative opinions) and stances
on poverty -- all of which are very much the bread and butter issues
of the Christian churches. Yet, the Left find themselves in
uncomfortable company, as they have a big problem with religion (which
they see as the domain of the conservatives).
>Barack Obama quote:
>
>"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used
>to bring us together and faith started being used to drive
>us apart," he told the national meeting of the United Church
>of Christ, the liberal church of which he is a member.
Funny, that. The only thing that really drives us apart is petty
politics. Faith tends to draw us together, even across party lines.
>"Faith got hijacked partly because the so-called leaders
>of the Christian Right are all too eager to exploit what
>divides us.
>
>"At every opportunity they've told evangelical Christians
>that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their
>church,
They do. It's not all that difficult to see. I don't generally agree
with the "Christian Right", but I do think they have a point. While I
don't hold with bringing back Christian prayer in public schools, it
is clear that the (especially far-) Left disrespect basic religious
values and seek to strip religion from public discourse.
>while suggesting to the rest of the country that
>religious Americans care only about issues like
>abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and
>intelligent design."
>
>"There was even a time when the Christian Coalition
>determined that its number one legislative priority was
>tax cuts for the rich. I don't know what Bible they're
>reading, but it doesn't [match] my version."
>
>(Daily Telegraph)
"Tax cuts for the rich" is a typical misnomer. Given that only tax
payers can receive a tax cut, and given that something like 1% of US
taxpayers pay the vast majority of the tax revenue, it stands to
reason that it's the richest that benefit _most_. However, every tax
payer benefits to a certain extent.
Padraic
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
randy
"Emma"
>>Randy, this is what I read in the Telegraph about
>>Barack Obama.
>>Some of what he says certainly
>>echoes what I read in the media here about
>>your right-wing denominations, and it's
Funny thing, I just finished watching Hannity and Colmes
discuss this very thing. I mean this was just 5 minutes ago!
Actually I heard about it awhile back and was shocked,
because it seemed like a very politically-unwise thing to
do, if he hoped to capture swing votes like my own. But I
understand it, because it's a fact that people like Pat
Robertson have for years made it clear that Republicans were
friendlier with Christians on the Right than Democrats.
Obama should not be shocked about this. This is not
divisive--this is disagreement, serious disagreement, within
the Faith community. It's the same kind of disagreement that
separates Christians into born agains and "we're all God's
children." It's the necessary kind of discussion that
separates people by issues into Trinitarians and Unitarians,
necessary doctrinal and social beliefs that define who we
choose to be as people of Faith.
Hannity raised the issue of Obama's minister, who apparently
inspired him to go into politics. This guy appears to be a
part of that Black community that takes angry stands against
the "White Establishment," arguing issues way out on the Far
Left in order to draw attention to the abuses Afro-Americans
have suffered. The idea seems to be to gather Black people
together into a political force for change, throwing in a
little spite to supposedly even the playing field. But Obama
has apparently now distanced himself from his minister. The
man is one of those who think America deserved 911 because
we're such a prejudiced nation. Maybe he's right in some
respects. But I think his attitude stinks, as does all those
who use the pain of Black people to push an angry agenda on
America, splitting people of Faith and splitting people of
different races. (I'm happy Obama distanced himself from his
minister.)
Obama did a bad thing in my eyes by attacking the Religious
Right. Ann Coulter said it right when she said, Why can't
you of Faith on the Left change in order to maintain
unity of Faith in America? Why do you suppose it's the
Christian Right that has to make the changes? Why is it
necessary only for one side to change, the Christian Right,
in order to maintain unity among people of Faith? And I
would ask you, Emma, Do you think Christians on the Right
have to give up their views on abortion, on heterosexual
marriage, on things from immigration to taxation, simply to
maintain unity with people of Faith on the Left? If not, you
would have to agree that in America, the Republican Party is
more a friend to Christians on the Right than Democrats. And
that's the whole point.
randy
Emma
Yes, I agree that's a terrible attitude, but
if there's no suggestion that Obama agreed with this
minister then there isn't a problem.
Is it possible today for a man from his background
to get elected in the US, do you think? The name
probably doesn't help. Perhaps he should have changed
that.
I don't really know the full situation in America.
I know its still very segregated, but would that affect
his chances?
>Obama did a bad thing in my eyes by attacking the Religious
>Right. Ann Coulter said it right when she said, Why can't
>you of Faith on the Left change in order to maintain
>unity of Faith in America? Why do you suppose it's the
>Christian Right that has to make the changes? Why is it
>necessary only for one side to change, the Christian Right,
>in order to maintain unity among people of Faith?
>And I would ask you, Emma, Do you think Christians on the Right
>have to give up their views on abortion, on heterosexual
>marriage, on things from immigration to taxation, simply to
>maintain unity with people of Faith on the Left?
I think it's possible for Christians to have all sorts
of views. As you know, I disagree with abortion and
homosexual marriage. I'm very conservative.
I see some of your more extreme Christians taking the
position that their views are the correct views though, and
anyone who holds a different opinion can't possibly
be a Christian.
Perhaps liberal Christians in the US are just as intolerant
towards alternative views as right-wing Christians though.
I see that sometimes.
So I think you have a point.
I suppose I equate all the aggressive, rude, intolerant,
extreme Christians with whom I've had, er, debates here
over the years, with the right wing Republican-voting
Christians though. They shut down debate on the ngs, and this
is apparently replicated across the US. It's just the
impression I get.
I suppose it's one of the very few
things about America that I find hard to
stomach. It's the ugly side of religion, that is
unique to America among the Western nations.
Although, there is obviously a nasty side to
all religions, and we see the atheists being just as
intolerant.
I suppose all the power is with the Republican Christians
though, so that's probably why the criticism is aimed mainly at
them at the moment.
If Obama can introduce tolerance, then I think that
would be a good thing. So that's why I was attracted
to what he said. Also, he's the first person I've
heard get at all angry about the suffering of your
poorest people.
I suppose homosexual marriage would be less of an issue
for me than getting more help for your desperately
poor people, and getting them medical care too.
I don't understand why a nation which put a man on
the moon can't provide decent living conditions for
some of its people.
>If not, you
>would have to agree that in America, the Republican Party is
>more a friend to Christians on the Right than Democrats. And
>that's the whole point.
I don't follow, Randy. I think tolerance and concern
for the poor are issues that should interest all
Christians.
Of course, I don't know anything else about him, so
I don't know if the other issues appeal to the
majority of your voters. I may disagree with
other issues.
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
Emma
says...
Oh okay, although I believe his father was
Muslim, so there is a Muslim
connection. And he does have an Islamic
sounding name, which might not help him.
He's also probably Christian because he lives
in America, wouldn't you say?
Because it's the predominant culture?
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
Emma
>
>On 25 Jun 2007 04:53:43 -0700, Emma <em...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>(Btw, the Telegraph said that he was trying to put forward the
>>Bible's teachings
>
>That right there will largely kill his chances of ever getting
>anywhere near the White House. At present, the Left in the US -- the
>_Party_, not necessarily Democrat voters -- are anti-religion and
>especially anti-Christian. He might as well state that, upon taking
>over the presidency, his first and formost action will be to make
>public the relationship the US Government has with alien governments
>on other planets.
But for anyone to get elected to the White
House, they have to be Christian, don't they?
I mean, the majority of Americans identify
as Christians, and you have high church
attendance. So if the Democratic party
don't put forward a Christian candidate,
then surely they won't ever get into power?
That's the impression I get.
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
Rob Strom
> On 25 Jun 2007 04:53:43 -0700, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
...
>
> >(Btw, the Telegraph said that he was trying to put forward the
> >Bible's teachings
>
> That right there will largely kill his chances of ever getting
> anywhere near the White House. At present, the Left in the US -- the
> _Party_, not necessarily Democrat voters -- are anti-religion and
> especially anti-Christian.
I totally disagree and I want to challenge you to support either the
"anti-religion" or the "anti-Christian" part of that statement.
Please don't equate "less likely to attend church" with "anti-
Christian".
Most of the Democrats I know are like me, and from my perspective
the principles they espouse have a strong moral basis and in my
opinion from the LMRS point of view, resonate more with the
teachings of the Bible and of Jesus than the other side's do.
...
> Yet, the Left find themselves in
> uncomfortable company, as they have a big problem with religion (which
> they see as the domain of the conservatives).
No. They don't have a big problem with religion, any more than Jesus
had a "big problem with religion". They have a big problem with
religious *hypocrites* who emphasize superficial piety, while
disdaining the fundamental religious values, namely respecting
the stranger and helping the poor and sick, and "the least of
these your brethren".
...
>
> They do. It's not all that difficult to see. I don't generally agree
> with the "Christian Right", but I do think they have a point. While I
> don't hold with bringing back Christian prayer in public schools, it
> is clear that the (especially far-) Left disrespect basic religious
> values and seek to strip religion from public discourse.
The Left does not seek to strip religion from public discourse.
What they disdain is "Look at me, I go to church all the
time and lead prayer breakfasts, therefore I'm better than
these other candidates who don't".
...
>
> "Tax cuts for the rich" is a typical misnomer. Given that only tax
> payers can receive a tax cut, and given that something like 1% of US
> taxpayers pay the vast majority of the tax revenue, it stands to
> reason that it's the richest that benefit _most_. However, every tax
> payer benefits to a certain extent.
>
The sound bite about "tax cuts for the rich" is a shorthand for this:
The middle class gets a few hundred dollars of so-called
"tax relief", while losing a few thousand dollars of what used
to be tax-funded services and other relief; whereas the rich
get a few ten-thousands of dollars of "tax relief" while losing
the same few thousand dollars of these same services that they don't
need,
thereby widening the gap between those born into money and
those not. Democrats, following a Biblical model, don't like this.
Especially when we're paying billions to destroy another country
and make it a terrorist haven so we can "fight them over there".
--
Rob Strom
Padraic Brown
>In article <rkp083h3k0cp68boa...@4ax.com>, Padraic Brown says...
>>
>>On 25 Jun 2007 04:53:43 -0700, Emma <em...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>(Btw, the Telegraph said that he was trying to put forward the
>>>Bible's teachings
>>
>>That right there will largely kill his chances of ever getting
>>anywhere near the White House. At present, the Left in the US -- the
>>_Party_, not necessarily Democrat voters -- are anti-religion and
>>especially anti-Christian. He might as well state that, upon taking
>>over the presidency, his first and formost action will be to make
>>public the relationship the US Government has with alien governments
>>on other planets.
>
>But for anyone to get elected to the White
>House, they have to be Christian, don't they?
No. John Kennedy was a Catholic. According to some folks around here,
that's a whisper away from Satanism.
Given that this has traditionally been a Christian country, it should
come as no surprise that the presidents have been mostly Christian.
A fairly thorough list
(http://savage-comedy.com/_List_of_United_States_Presidential_religious_affiliations)
breaks down the preseidents by religious affiliation (many have had
more than one):
Baptist
Warren Harding
Harry Truman
Jimmy Carter (raised Southern Baptist, later left the denomination)
Bill Clinton (Southern Baptist)
Congregationalist
Calvin Coolidge
Deist
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Tyler
Abraham Lincoln (also listed as without affiliation)
Disciples of Christ
James Garfield
Lyndon Johnson
Ronald Reagan
Dutch Reformed
Martin Van Buren
Theodore Roosevelt
Episcopalian葉he first 7 listed below were all from Virginia, where
the Episcopal Church was the state church until 1786.
George Washington (primarily Deist)
Thomas Jefferson (primarily Deist)
James Madison (primarily Deist)
James Monroe (primarily Deist)
William Henry Harrison (planning on joining?)
John Tyler (primarily Deist)
Zachary Taylor (Deist?)
Franklin Pierce
Chester A. Arthur
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Gerald Ford
George H. W. Bush
Methodist
James Polk (originally Presbyterian)
Ulysses Grant (also listed as without affiliation)
William McKinley
George W. Bush (originally Episcopalian)
Presbyterian
Andrew Jackson
James Polk (later Methodist)
James Buchanan
Grover Cleveland
Benjamin Harrison
Woodrow Wilson
Dwight D. Eisenhower (originally Jehovah's Witnesses)
Quaker
Herbert Hoover
Richard Nixon
Roman Catholic
John F. Kennedy
Jehovah's Witnesses
Dwight D. Eisenhower (later Presbyterian)
Unitarian誘nitarian Universalism is the religion generally associated
today with those whose ideology developed from Deism.
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Millard Fillmore
William Howard Taft
Presidents without affiliation
Abraham Lincoln (also listed as Deist)
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses Grant (also listed as Methodist)
Rutherford Hayes
>I mean, the majority of Americans identify
>as Christians, and you have high church
>attendance. So if the Democratic party
>don't put forward a Christian candidate,
>then surely they won't ever get into power?
For me, it doesn't matter so much. I know that a voter like Randy
won't vote for a non-Christian. I think that _most_ voters are
probably not ready for a Moslem president (possibly not for a
Moslem-sounding candidate either); although a Moslem president could
serve as a beacon to a benighted and barbaric Middle East. We haven't
been ready for a black president or a woman president either. JFK has
been the only real anomaly, being a Catholic in the midst of a vast
ocean of very strong Protestantism.
The Deist presidents don't really count as Desim was the Big Thing
back in Enlightenment America and all of them were the movers and
shakers of the new republic and its bid for independence.
>That's the impression I get.
I think we'll have a woman president or a black president before a
nonChristian president; and we'll have a Mormon or another Catholic or
a Jew or a Buddhist before a Moslem. At least, as of now!
Emma
>
>On 27 Jun 2007 02:41:59 -0700, Emma <em...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>But for anyone to get elected to the White
>>House, they have to be Christian, don't they?
>
>No. John Kennedy was a Catholic. According to some folks around here,
>that's a whisper away from Satanism.
Yes, I sometimes wonder how that happened.
Especially as it was back in a time when
prejudice was much more common.
Unless prejudice against Catholics has
become common again. In which case, I don't
understand why.
Actually, yes I do. It's probably to do with
the current Protestant revival in the US.
A state church? Wow, I didn't know that.
Interesting.
>Methodist
>James Polk (originally Presbyterian)
>Ulysses Grant (also listed as without affiliation)
>William McKinley
>George W. Bush (originally Episcopalian)
>
>Presbyterian
>Andrew Jackson
>James Polk (later Methodist)
>James Buchanan
>Grover Cleveland
>Benjamin Harrison
>Woodrow Wilson
>Dwight D. Eisenhower (originally Jehovah's Witnesses)
>
>Quaker
>Herbert Hoover
>Richard Nixon
>
>Roman Catholic
>John F. Kennedy
>
>Jehovah's Witnesses
>Dwight D. Eisenhower (later Presbyterian)
Blimey!
>Unitarian誘nitarian Universalism is the religion generally associated
>today with those whose ideology developed from Deism.
>John Adams
>John Quincy Adams
>Millard Fillmore
>William Howard Taft
>
>Presidents without affiliation
>Abraham Lincoln (also listed as Deist)
>Andrew Johnson
>Ulysses Grant (also listed as Methodist)
>Rutherford Hayes
I wonder if a Deist would stand a chance today?
>>I mean, the majority of Americans identify
>>as Christians, and you have high church
>>attendance. So if the Democratic party
>>don't put forward a Christian candidate,
>>then surely they won't ever get into power?
>
>For me, it doesn't matter so much. I know that a voter like Randy
>won't vote for a non-Christian. I think that _most_ voters are
>probably not ready for a Moslem president (possibly not for a
>Moslem-sounding candidate either);
I think there's probably too much for the opposition
to exploit about Obama's background.
Even though he's Christian, I suppose it could
be argued that he may have sympathies with Islamic
countries, since he does have Islamic ancestry.
> although a Moslem president could
>serve as a beacon to a benighted and barbaric Middle East.
Yes, if he was an enthusiastic convert to
Christianity, and a fierce critic of Fundamentalist
Islam (maybe he is, I don't know) then it would
be better, but it seems he's just fallen into
Christianity and adopted it by default, because its the
majority religion of the US.
> We haven't
>been ready for a black president or a woman president either.
Is he black by your definition in the US?
I thought Arabs are "white" according to your
system.
> JFK has
>been the only real anomaly, being a Catholic in the midst of a vast
>ocean of very strong Protestantism.
Yes. Amazing. Considering the feelings
towards Irish Catholics when they first
arrived in the US.
Although that showed that the Irish were
considered "on-side" at that point, whereas
are American Muslims considered "on-side" yet?
>The Deist presidents don't really count as Desim was the Big Thing
>back in Enlightenment America and all of them were the movers and
>shakers of the new republic and its bid for independence.
Yes, although that's still surprising, given
the extreme religious nature of your country.
I mean, you were settled by, well, very odd
people :-) And their genes are still
behaving strangely today. We see them manifesting
themselves on the ngs. They live on! :-)
I'm not saying that Deism is preferable over
Christianity. I don't believe that.
But what I mean is, you took a path of tolerance
when, with all those fundamentalist genes sloshing
around, it's a wonder you didn't beome some sort
of theocracy.
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
Rob Strom
> In article <ba45831unc1jjcl60era41cin71555l...@4ax.com>, Padraic Brown says...
...
>
> > We haven't
> >been ready for a black president or a woman president either.
>
> Is he black by your definition in the US?
> I thought Arabs are "white" according to your
> system.
>
But he's not Arab.
His father was Kenyan, his mother American, which makes
him "African-American" in a very literal sense.
Where did you get the idea he was Arab?
--
Rob
Emma
says...
I don't know. I suppose he looks Arab, and he
has an Islamic sounding name.
Strangely though, if he was African-Arab he would
be "white", but since he's African-American, he is
"black".
I still think your system is silly. :-)
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
Rob Strom
> In article <1183042318.116331.313...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Rob Strom
> says...
> >On Jun 28, 4:42 am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >>In article <ba45831unc1jjcl60era41cin71555l...@4ax.com>, Padraic Brown says...
> >...
>
> >> > We haven't
> >> >been ready for a black president or a woman president either.
>
> >> Is he black by your definition in the US?
> >> I thought Arabs are "white" according to your
> >> system.
>
> >But he's not Arab.
>
> >His father was Kenyan, his mother American, which makes
> >him "African-American" in a very literal sense.
>
> >Where did you get the idea he was Arab?
>
> I don't know. I suppose he looks Arab, and he
> has an Islamic sounding name.
He doesn't look the slightest bit Arab!
Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama.
He looks what used to be called "Negro",
and what was later called "black" and still
later "African-American".
Look at pictures of Saddam Hussein, and look
at pictures of Obama. Hussein is Arab,
and has light skin, no frizzy hair,
and what would be called
(if he weren't Arab) a "Jewish" nose. Obama is (50%) African,
and has brown skin, frizzy hair and a broad nose,
which are the marks of what we think of
as the "black" race.
>
> Strangely though, if he was African-Arab he would
> be "white", but since he's African-American, he is
> "black".
No. If he were an Arab with white skin, he would be white.
> I still think your system is silly. :-)
It's silly in that Obama has one white parent and one black parent,
and looks color-wise like a mixture of the two, but our system,
conceived
in prejudice, calls him "black". That's because racial prejudice
is founded on silly notions of "purity", so anything that
isn't "pure" white is considered "black".
--
Rob Strom
Fred A Stover
news:ba45831unc1jjcl60...@4ax.com...
Hello Padraic,
<snip to points>
> A fairly thorough list
>
(http://savage-comedy.com/_List_of_United_States_Presidential_religious_affi
liations)
> breaks down the preseidents by religious affiliation (many have had
> more than one):
<snip>
> Dwight D. Eisenhower (originally Jehovah's Witnesses)
The Jehovah Witnesses broadcast that, but only his mother was, not the rest
of the family. Jehovah Witnesses don't go to West Point; they're
consciencious objectors and don't serve in the military.
<snip>
> We haven't
> been ready for a black president or a woman president either. JFK has
> been the only real anomaly, being a Catholic in the midst of a vast
> ocean of very strong Protestantism.
>
We've had an Afro-American president. (See The Available Man, by Andrew
Sinclair).
His,
--
www.geocities.com/freds...@sbcglobal.net/
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as
a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Mark 10:15)
<)))))><
Preparing the way of the Lord.
randy
"Emma"
randy
> Is it possible today for a man from his background
> to get elected in the US, do you think? The name
> probably doesn't help. Perhaps he should have changed
> that.
> I don't really know the full situation in America.
> I know its still very segregated, but would that affect
> his chances?
I don't think we're terribly segregated. I could be wrong,
but it seems that where there are large pockets of Blacks or
large pockets of Whites, it may be more a matter of cultural
interest rather than bigotry. Chinese hang out in Chinatown
not because they're prejudiced, necessarily, but because
they're familiar with and like Chinese culture. But pockets
of Black poverty are a different matter. That's a sad state
of affairs, which needs to be addressed.
But yes, I think Obama has an excellent chance at becoming
president. I don't know that he will, but he has a great
personality and a great chance. He's a strong leader, and he
can challenge Hillary Clinton with eloquence and poise. How
he'll match up against the Republicans is a different
matter. Once again, you have the strong and formidable mix
of conservatives and the Christian Right. Obama doesn't
match up much better against them than Hillary Clinton does.
Right now, anything's possible though. People are really
soured over politics right now. They don't seem to like
either Republican or Democrat.
I don't see the big issues to involve poverty, such you as
you think. I think the big issues are the Iraq war, who can
produce real bills out of Congress, and what our
relationship is to be with the rest of the world. It also
kind of depends on how the different parties will frame the
argument. I don't think the Republicans can possibly afford
to take cheap shots at Obama because he is a minority.
Republicans in fact will lose if they can't attract some of
either the Hispanic or the Black vote.
> I think it's possible for Christians to have all sorts
> of views. As you know, I disagree with abortion and
> homosexual marriage. I'm very conservative.
Yes, I knew that. You're somewhere between the Right and the
Left in this country. I actually find a lot in common with
you, except I don't have a problem with the Christian Right.
I'm actually part of that.
> I see some of your more extreme Christians taking the
> position that their views are the correct views though,
> and
> anyone who holds a different opinion can't possibly
> be a Christian.
It isn't unusual for Christians to have a litmus test as to
who is a genuine Christian or not. That's what the creeds
did in terms of doctrine. That's what evangelicals do in
terms of spiritual values. The idea that the Christian Right
is "extreme" is just a tactic, in my opinion. I could just
as easily say that those on the Left are "extreme," and
those in the middle are fickle or lukewarm.
> Perhaps liberal Christians in the US are just as
> intolerant
> towards alternative views as right-wing Christians though.
> I see that sometimes.
Brilliant, Emma. I mean that!
> So I think you have a point.
> I suppose I equate all the aggressive, rude, intolerant,
> extreme Christians with whom I've had, er, debates here
> over the years, with the right wing Republican-voting
> Christians though. They shut down debate on the ngs, and
> this
> is apparently replicated across the US. It's just the
> impression I get....
Yes, that's something for me to think about. It doesn't mean
that the belief is wrong, though. It may mean that right
beliefs can create arrogance and rudeness, which is the
antithesis of what's really right.
> I suppose it's one of the very few
> things about America that I find hard to
> stomach. It's the ugly side of religion, that is
> unique to America among the Western nations.
I don't think you can ever get around it. Even those who
believe as you and I do, that homosexual marriage is wrong,
that abortion is wrong, will tend to act arrogant and rude,
and will judge others without heart or understanding. And
those who believe in homosexual marriage and abortion are
probably worse in my book--they promote immorality and
violence.
> Although, there is obviously a nasty side to
> all religions, and we see the atheists being just as
> intolerant.
You're really hitting it on the nail tonight, Emma! The
sword is a double-edge sword, no matter which side you take.
But I think you're really trying to be fair.
> I suppose all the power is with the Republican Christians
> though, so that's probably why the criticism is aimed
> mainly at
> them at the moment.
I don't know. Christians have always taken flak, in power or
out. The problem is, the political parties often
underestimate the power of the Christian vote (the Christian
Right, that is). That's because our media is leftwing, and
tries to marginalize any influence the Christians may have.
In the last election, the newspapers and television news
overwhelmingly predicted a victory for the Democrats against
Bush. But it's now pretty well agreed that the Christian
Right made the difference in Bush's narrow victory.
> If Obama can introduce tolerance, then I think that
> would be a good thing. So that's why I was attracted
> to what he said. Also, he's the first person I've
> heard get at all angry about the suffering of your
> poorest people...
Yes, I like him because he has heart. And he doesn't seem to
have an attitude in terms of the suffering Blacks have
suffered in American history.
> I suppose homosexual marriage would be less of an issue
> for me than getting more help for your desperately
> poor people, and getting them medical care too.
I don't really know where Obama stands on the issue of
homosexual marriage. But even Democrat Clinton claimed to be
a Christian and personally against homosexuality and
abortion (I think). He just believed that America is a
diverse country, and he believed as a Democrat that he
should give Americans the right to decide for themselves.
His vote for homosexuality and abortion may have been more a
vote for freedom than a vote for sin. But I still don't
agree with his position. I do agree, however, that some
issues at certain times can be more important. Social
justice and social compassion can take a front seat over
some of these contentious issues.
> I don't understand why a nation which put a man on
> the moon can't provide decent living conditions for
> some of its people.
No country has *ever* been able to guarantee this. My own
stepsons in England do not have a "decent" living.
Thankfully one of my sons is now working again. But I don't
believe either son, working or on government money, has much
more than the average poor in our country.
>>If not, you
>>would have to agree that in America, the Republican Party
>>is
>>more a friend to Christians on the Right than Democrats.
>>And
>>that's the whole point.
> I don't follow, Randy. I think tolerance and concern
> for the poor are issues that should interest all
> Christians.
The Christian Right sees both immorality and poverty as
issues of equal concern. Both lead to disaster. Immorality
in the family destroys families, which leads to poverty. And
promoting immorality leads to corrupt leaders, which in turn
leads to the complete corruption of the country. The
Christian Right seems to place issues or immorality first
because it's thought that choosing a leader with the right
beliefs is the best guarantee that the leader will have
genuine concern for the poor.
> Of course, I don't know anything else about him, so
> I don't know if the other issues appeal to the
> majority of your voters. I may disagree with
> other issues.
I'm still undecided.
randy
Emma
says...
>
>>>
>> >
>> >Where did you get the idea he was Arab?
>>
>> I don't know. I suppose he looks Arab, and he
>> has an Islamic sounding name.
>
>He doesn't look the slightest bit Arab!
>
>Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama.
>
>He looks what used to be called "Negro",
>and what was later called "black" and still
>later "African-American".
>
>Look at pictures of Saddam Hussein, and look
>at pictures of Obama. Hussein is Arab,
>and has light skin, no frizzy hair,
>and what would be called
>(if he weren't Arab) a "Jewish" nose. Obama is (50%) African,
>and has brown skin, frizzy hair and a broad nose,
>which are the marks of what we think of
>as the "black" race.
Ah yes, I hadn't seen particularly good pictures
before. His nose is not an Arab nose.
Saddam Hussein didn't have light skin though.
I would say his skin was as dark as Barack Obama's.
>> Strangely though, if he was African-Arab he would
>> be "white", but since he's African-American, he is
>> "black".
>
>No. If he were an Arab with white skin, he would be white.
But I can't think of any Arab countries where they have
white skin. They're all dark skinned, dark hair, dark
eyes.
>> I still think your system is silly. :-)
>
>It's silly in that Obama has one white parent and one black parent,
>and looks color-wise like a mixture of the two, but our system,
>conceived
>in prejudice, calls him "black". That's because racial prejudice
>is founded on silly notions of "purity", so anything that
>isn't "pure" white is considered "black".
>
Here he would be called "mixed race".
Don't you use that term?
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
Rob Strom
> In article <1183051960.164059.27...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Rob Strom
> says...
...
>
> Ah yes, I hadn't seen particularly good pictures
> before. His nose is not an Arab nose.
>
> Saddam Hussein didn't have light skin though.
> I would say his skin was as dark as Barack Obama's.
>
No. And Barack Obama, having 1/2 white ancestry,
is not as dark as a typical black person.
Most Arabs and Jews have lighter skin than that however.
...
>
> >It's silly in that Obama has one white parent and one black parent,
> >and looks color-wise like a mixture of the two, but our system,
> >conceived
> >in prejudice, calls him "black". That's because racial prejudice
> >is founded on silly notions of "purity", so anything that
> >isn't "pure" white is considered "black".
>
> Here he would be called "mixed race".
> Don't you use that term?
>
Yes, but unfortunately, in most of the country, that
term is lumped with "non-white".
--
Rob Strom
Emma
says...
>
>On Jun 29, 5:00 am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <1183051960.164059.27...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Rob Strom
>> says...
>...
>>
>> Ah yes, I hadn't seen particularly good pictures
>> before. His nose is not an Arab nose.
>>
>> Saddam Hussein didn't have light skin though.
>> I would say his skin was as dark as Barack Obama's.
>>
>
>No. And Barack Obama, having 1/2 white ancestry,
>is not as dark as a typical black person.
>
>Most Arabs and Jews have lighter skin than that however.
>
But I watch news reports about Iraq, and the people
have very dark skin. They're not similar to white
skinned Europeans.
Jews come from all races. So European Jews look very
different to Jews from, say, Africa. I don't think
there is a typical Jewish skin tone, is there?
>> >It's silly in that Obama has one white parent and one black parent,
>> >and looks color-wise like a mixture of the two, but our system,
>> >conceived
>> >in prejudice, calls him "black". That's because racial prejudice
>> >is founded on silly notions of "purity", so anything that
>> >isn't "pure" white is considered "black".
>>
>> Here he would be called "mixed race".
>> Don't you use that term?
>>
>
>Yes, but unfortunately, in most of the country, that
>term is lumped with "non-white".
>
Well they are non-white. I don't see why that
should be a problem though.
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
Padraic Brown
<freds...@email.com> wrote:
>"Padraic Brown" <elem...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:ba45831unc1jjcl60...@4ax.com...
>
>
>Hello Padraic,
Greetings!
>> Dwight D. Eisenhower (originally Jehovah's Witnesses)
>
>The Jehovah Witnesses broadcast that, but only his mother was, not the rest
>of the family. Jehovah Witnesses don't go to West Point; they're
>consciencious objectors and don't serve in the military.
Makes sense for him to convert, then.
>> We haven't
>> been ready for a black president or a woman president either. JFK has
>> been the only real anomaly, being a Catholic in the midst of a vast
>> ocean of very strong Protestantism.
>>
>
>We've had an Afro-American president.
Right, sorry: Bill Clinton _was_ the first African American prezident,
after all!
>(See The Available Man, by Andrew Sinclair).
What makes Warren Harding an African American president?
Padraic
>
>
>
>
>His,
Padraic Brown
>In article <ba45831unc1jjcl60...@4ax.com>, Padraic Brown says...
>>
>>On 27 Jun 2007 02:41:59 -0700, Emma <em...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>But for anyone to get elected to the White
>>>House, they have to be Christian, don't they?
>>
>>No. John Kennedy was a Catholic. According to some folks around here,
>>that's a whisper away from Satanism.
>
>
>Yes, I sometimes wonder how that happened.
>Especially as it was back in a time when
>prejudice was much more common.
>Unless prejudice against Catholics has
>become common again. In which case, I don't
>understand why.
>
>Actually, yes I do. It's probably to do with
>the current Protestant revival in the US.
Nothing new in the anti-Catholic stance of US Protestantism. I was
poking around a boot sale last year and found a short article written
by a (Protestant) minister a short while before Kennedy's election.
I'll have to find it, but I recall it expressed commonly held fears
and misconceptions.
>>Episcopalian—the first 7 listed below were all from Virginia, where
>>the Episcopal Church was the state church until 1786.
>A state church? Wow, I didn't know that.
>Interesting.
Yeah, it is actually pretty interesting. The last established church
was disestablished in the 1830s. You might think -- what about the
First Amendment? Weren't those churches unconstitutional? The
Constitution only prevents Congress from establishing a national
"Church of the United States". Individual states were considered free
to retain their own state churches as they saw fit. I think most if
not all state constitutions have banned the idea.
>I wonder if a Deist would stand a chance today?
They had a hard enough time back when Deism was a going religious
persuasion. Certainly there are Deists even now. A "quiet Deist" --
someone who attends services in a normal denomination (like the early
Desit presidents who regularly attended Christian church) but who
holds to Deist beliefs would probably stand as good a chance as
anyone.
>>>I mean, the majority of Americans identify
>>>as Christians, and you have high church
>>>attendance. So if the Democratic party
>>>don't put forward a Christian candidate,
>>>then surely they won't ever get into power?
>>
>>For me, it doesn't matter so much. I know that a voter like Randy
>>won't vote for a non-Christian. I think that _most_ voters are
>>probably not ready for a Moslem president (possibly not for a
>>Moslem-sounding candidate either);
>
>I think there's probably too much for the opposition
>to exploit about Obama's background.
>Even though he's Christian, I suppose it could
>be argued that he may have sympathies with Islamic
>countries, since he does have Islamic ancestry.
As I said earlier, that might not be such a bad thing -- he could form
a bridge.
>> although a Moslem president could
>>serve as a beacon to a benighted and barbaric Middle East.
>
>Yes, if he was an enthusiastic convert to
>Christianity, and a fierce critic of Fundamentalist
>Islam (maybe he is, I don't know) then it would
>be better, but it seems he's just fallen into
>Christianity and adopted it by default, because its the
>majority religion of the US.
>
>
>> We haven't
>>been ready for a black president or a woman president either.
>
>Is he black by your definition in the US?
No. Neither is he exactly white (and as Rob says, he's not "Arab" or
whatever either!).
>I thought Arabs are "white" according to your
>system.
Yes, but he's not Arab. One particularity of the American version of
English is that we never developped a proper set of ethnic terms.
Traditionally (like 19th and early 20th century), you're either
"white" or you're "black" -- and many people you'd swear are white
were actually considered black.
Rob says he's black, but you could just as legitimately say he's
white; I have no idea (and it really isn't important) what he says of
himself.
>> JFK has
>>been the only real anomaly, being a Catholic in the midst of a vast
>>ocean of very strong Protestantism.
>
>Yes. Amazing. Considering the feelings
>towards Irish Catholics when they first
>arrived in the US.
>Although that showed that the Irish were
>considered "on-side" at that point, whereas
>are American Muslims considered "on-side" yet?
I think a lot of people see "American Moslems" as Moslems first and
tend to forget that they're Americans. Unhappily, a lot of American
Moslems identify themselves as Moslem first and American only second
or third. That's not so good a situation, as you really don't know
where their loyalties lie. Had Kennedy said he was a Catholic first
and an American second, I'd wonder too if he would take orders from
the Pope of Rome. It is a dangerous thing to hold your religion so
high that it interferes in this way.
>>The Deist presidents don't really count as Desim was the Big Thing
>>back in Enlightenment America and all of them were the movers and
>>shakers of the new republic and its bid for independence.
>
>Yes, although that's still surprising, given
>the extreme religious nature of your country.
>I mean, you were settled by, well, very odd
>people :-)
Almost all of them English, I might add!
>And their genes are still
>behaving strangely today. We see them manifesting
>themselves on the ngs. They live on! :-)
>
>I'm not saying that Deism is preferable over
>Christianity. I don't believe that.
I think it offers a good and rational brake on run-away Christianity.
Its basis is rationality -- too much of fundamentalist Christianity is
emotionalism and fearmongering.
>But what I mean is, you took a path of tolerance
>when, with all those fundamentalist genes sloshing
>around, it's a wonder you didn't beome some sort
>of theocracy.
To be honest, I think this can be attributed in some degree to the
Deist influence. Deism won't brook the kinds of radical and emotional
religion that Christianity can produce. It doesn't make any sense for
a religious persuasion that relies on individual reason and honest
enquiry in to the Truth to be the basis for a theocracy.
Or perhaps in some strange way, the US _is_ a Deist theocracy. The
recognition of the Deist concept of the Divine within the founding
documents; the enshrined _prohibition_ against the federal government
from imposing a religion (contrary to reason); the freedom to worship
as the individual sees fit (individual reason applied to religion) --
perhaps these are the hallmarks of a Deist theocracy. That's not so
bad a thing at all!
Fred A Stover
He was African-American. His race was a minor campaign issue, but it didn't
make a difference.
Emma
>
>On 28 Jun 2007 01:42:31 -0700, Emma <em...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>No. John Kennedy was a Catholic. According to some folks around here,
>>>that's a whisper away from Satanism.
>>
>>
>>Yes, I sometimes wonder how that happened.
>>Especially as it was back in a time when
>>prejudice was much more common.
>>Unless prejudice against Catholics has
>>become common again. In which case, I don't
>>understand why.
>>
>>Actually, yes I do. It's probably to do with
>>the current Protestant revival in the US.
>
>Nothing new in the anti-Catholic stance of US Protestantism. I was
>poking around a boot sale last year and found a short article written
>by a (Protestant) minister a short while before Kennedy's election.
>I'll have to find it, but I recall it expressed commonly held fears
>and misconceptions.
Ah, the Whore of Babylon? That sort of thing?
It would be interesting to hear.
>>>Episcopalian—the first 7 listed below were all from Virginia, where
>>>the Episcopal Church was the state church until 1786.
>
>>A state church? Wow, I didn't know that.
>>Interesting.
>
>Yeah, it is actually pretty interesting. The last established church
>was disestablished in the 1830s. You might think -- what about the
>First Amendment? Weren't those churches unconstitutional? The
>Constitution only prevents Congress from establishing a national
>"Church of the United States". Individual states were considered free
>to retain their own state churches as they saw fit. I think most if
>not all state constitutions have banned the idea.
Gosh. So it's not unconstitutional?
The individual states just choose not to have
a state church?
I'll remember that the next time someone ridicules
the C of E :-)
>>I wonder if a Deist would stand a chance today?
>
>They had a hard enough time back when Deism was a going religious
>persuasion. Certainly there are Deists even now. A "quiet Deist" --
>someone who attends services in a normal denomination (like the early
>Desit presidents who regularly attended Christian church) but who
>holds to Deist beliefs would probably stand as good a chance as
>anyone.
Oh, I see. They were not openly Deist.
>>>
>>>For me, it doesn't matter so much. I know that a voter like Randy
>>>won't vote for a non-Christian. I think that _most_ voters are
>>>probably not ready for a Moslem president (possibly not for a
>>>Moslem-sounding candidate either);
>>
>>I think there's probably too much for the opposition
>>to exploit about Obama's background.
>>Even though he's Christian, I suppose it could
>>be argued that he may have sympathies with Islamic
>>countries, since he does have Islamic ancestry.
>
>As I said earlier, that might not be such a bad thing -- he could form
>a bridge.
I don't know. I think it would niggle at the back
of my mind. And I bet many Americans have the
same worries.
I suppose it would depend on the strength of his
statements about Islam. I would be listening for
that.
>>> We haven't
>>>been ready for a black president or a woman president either.
>>
>>Is he black by your definition in the US?
>
>No. Neither is he exactly white (and as Rob says, he's not "Arab" or
>whatever either!).
>
>>I thought Arabs are "white" according to your
>>system.
>
>Yes, but he's not Arab.
OK, but that is still weird, because I don't know
of any Arab nations where they have white skin.
White skin is unique to Europe.
That's just a quirk of nature. Europe is a cool
climate, so Europeans lost the pigmentation.
>One particularity of the American version of
>English is that we never developped a proper set of ethnic terms.
>Traditionally (like 19th and early 20th century), you're either
>"white" or you're "black" -- and many people you'd swear are white
>were actually considered black.
>
>Rob says he's black, but you could just as legitimately say he's
>white; I have no idea (and it really isn't important) what he says of
>himself.
No, but if someone with dark skin says
they're white, then it does seem a bit odd.
In what sense are dark skinned people "white"?
I've been through this a lot with various
people, but I can't see anything consistent
about your system.
Also, it's said that America will soon no longer
be majority white. Everyone here would assume that
means that the US will soon no longer be of majority
European descent. But since your system is different,
perhaps the US is already no longer of majority
European descent?
New York seemed very European to me, btw.
London is far more cosmopolitan than New York.
The whole world is in London.
Although my husband did get lost in China town
(in New York)on one occasion :-) He was the
only European in sight.
>I think a lot of people see "American Moslems" as Moslems first and
>tend to forget that they're Americans. Unhappily, a lot of American
>Moslems identify themselves as Moslem first and American only second
>or third. That's not so good a situation, as you really don't know
>where their loyalties lie. Had Kennedy said he was a Catholic first
>and an American second, I'd wonder too if he would take orders from
>the Pope of Rome. It is a dangerous thing to hold your religion so
>high that it interferes in this way.
Yes. Good point.
>>>The Deist presidents don't really count as Desim was the Big Thing
>>>back in Enlightenment America and all of them were the movers and
>>>shakers of the new republic and its bid for independence.
>>
>>Yes, although that's still surprising, given
>>the extreme religious nature of your country.
>>I mean, you were settled by, well, very odd
>>people :-)
>
>Almost all of them English, I might add!
Oh yes. But we got rid of them :-)
I really do think it's genetic, btw.
We were left with the tediously dull religious
genes though.
Actually, I don't know which is worse.
>>And their genes are still
>>behaving strangely today. We see them manifesting
>>themselves on the ngs. They live on! :-)
>>
>>I'm not saying that Deism is preferable over
>>Christianity. I don't believe that.
>
>I think it offers a good and rational brake on run-away Christianity.
>Its basis is rationality -- too much of fundamentalist Christianity is
>emotionalism and fearmongering.
Yes, that's exactly right.
>>But what I mean is, you took a path of tolerance
>>when, with all those fundamentalist genes sloshing
>>around, it's a wonder you didn't beome some sort
>>of theocracy.
>
>To be honest, I think this can be attributed in some degree to the
>Deist influence. Deism won't brook the kinds of radical and emotional
>religion that Christianity can produce. It doesn't make any sense for
>a religious persuasion that relies on individual reason and honest
>enquiry in to the Truth to be the basis for a theocracy.
>
>Or perhaps in some strange way, the US _is_ a Deist theocracy. The
>recognition of the Deist concept of the Divine within the founding
>documents; the enshrined _prohibition_ against the federal government
>from imposing a religion (contrary to reason); the freedom to worship
>as the individual sees fit (individual reason applied to religion) --
>perhaps these are the hallmarks of a Deist theocracy. That's not so
>bad a thing at all!
A lot of people say something similar, but
it looks very Christian from here.
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
Padraic Brown
>>>>Episcopalian—the first 7 listed below were all from Virginia, where
>>>>the Episcopal Church was the state church until 1786.
>>
>>>A state church? Wow, I didn't know that.
>>>Interesting.
>>
>>Yeah, it is actually pretty interesting. The last established church
>>was disestablished in the 1830s. You might think -- what about the
>>First Amendment? Weren't those churches unconstitutional? The
>>Constitution only prevents Congress from establishing a national
>>"Church of the United States". Individual states were considered free
>>to retain their own state churches as they saw fit. I think most if
>>not all state constitutions have banned the idea.
>
>Gosh. So it's not unconstitutional?
What is specifically unconstitutional is for the Federal Government to
establish a national state church. So, we can't an analogue to your
Church of England.
>The individual states just choose not to have
>a state church?
I'm sure they've adopted similar language in their own constitutions.
There are no states anymore that have established churches. Probably
if one tried to establish a church, the case would end up before the
Supreme Court and the state would be compelled to back down.
>I'll remember that the next time someone ridicules
>the C of E :-)
>
>
>>>I wonder if a Deist would stand a chance today?
>>
>>They had a hard enough time back when Deism was a going religious
>>persuasion. Certainly there are Deists even now. A "quiet Deist" --
>>someone who attends services in a normal denomination (like the early
>>Desit presidents who regularly attended Christian church) but who
>>holds to Deist beliefs would probably stand as good a chance as
>>anyone.
>
>
>Oh, I see. They were not openly Deist.
Not always. It seems they were accused of "atheism" and irreligion at
the time if they were too open and I doubt the situation would be much
better now.
And Asia. And it's not like all Europeans are lilly white either! Just
as there is a wide range of skin tones that can be called "black"
there are also a wide range of skin tones that are called "white".
Asians (of any sort) fit more in the latter group than the former.
>That's just a quirk of nature. Europe is a cool
>climate, so Europeans lost the pigmentation.
>
>
>>One particularity of the American version of
>>English is that we never developped a proper set of ethnic terms.
>>Traditionally (like 19th and early 20th century), you're either
>>"white" or you're "black" -- and many people you'd swear are white
>>were actually considered black.
>>
>>Rob says he's black, but you could just as legitimately say he's
>>white; I have no idea (and it really isn't important) what he says of
>>himself.
>
>No, but if someone with dark skin says
>they're white, then it does seem a bit odd.
Why?
>In what sense are dark skinned people "white"?
Because they aren't "black"? Basically, here, you are what you say you
are. If you identify as "white", then you're white.
>I've been through this a lot with various
>people, but I can't see anything consistent
>about your system.
I certainly never said it was consistent!
>Also, it's said that America will soon no longer
>be majority white. Everyone here would assume that
>means that the US will soon no longer be of majority
>European descent. But since your system is different,
>perhaps the US is already no longer of majority
>European descent?
It'll be a long time before that happens. What with all the Latin
Americans comming here, the country becomes more white all the time.
>New York seemed very European to me, btw.
>London is far more cosmopolitan than New York.
>The whole world is in London.
>Although my husband did get lost in China town
>(in New York)on one occasion :-) He was the
>only European in sight.
Well, then, he should have been easy to find!
Padraic Brown
<freds...@email.com> wrote:
Did he identify himself as African American? If he's mixed, be might
not have. But if he did, then there's no real issue!
Fred A Stover
I wasn't introducing an issue. Just pointing out race isn't that big of an
issue.
No, he did not identify himself as African-American, denying it as a
lingering rumor which was started by a neighbor in his childhood because of
his dark complexion. It was a minor issue raised by folks whose memory of
his family was longer than his, and it didn't make a difference to the
public.
Emma
>
>On 29 Jun 2007 17:20:14 -0700, Emma <em...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Gosh. So it's not unconstitutional?
>
>What is specifically unconstitutional is for the Federal Government to
>establish a national state church. So, we can't an analogue to your
>Church of England.
>
>>The individual states just choose not to have
>>a state church?
>
>I'm sure they've adopted similar language in their own constitutions.
>There are no states anymore that have established churches. Probably
>if one tried to establish a church, the case would end up before the
>Supreme Court and the state would be compelled to back down.
I see.
Yes, I notice that this is a subject that some
people get passionate about. Rob doesn't even
like the idea of Christmas trees in schools.
Personally, I think that's going a bit far.
But if the debate on the issue of religion
in schools always gets very heated, then I can
understand why everyone ends up taking extreme
positions.
Linda was also quite passionate about it. I suppose
you all are.
Does it bother you one way or the other?
My daughter made a Happy Eid card in school, and
that outraged me, and I may well complain if it
happens again, but I wouldn't go in all guns blazing
like Americans probably would.
Other parents were as baffled and annoyed as I
was by it (there was only one Muslim child in the
class!), but I suppose we're more used to religion
in schools here. Whereas it's virtually a capital
offence over there!
I mean, will it change the weather? Is it really
such a big deal?
>>>
>>>>I thought Arabs are "white" according to your
>>>>system.
>>>
>>>Yes, but he's not Arab.
>>
>>
>>OK, but that is still weird, because I don't know
>>of any Arab nations where they have white skin.
>>White skin is unique to Europe.
>
>And Asia.
Asia? But Asians are generally very dark.
I'm thinking of the Asians here, who are mainly Pakistani
and Indian. They have very dark skin.
>And it's not like all Europeans are lilly white either! Just
>as there is a wide range of skin tones that can be called "black"
>there are also a wide range of skin tones that are called "white".
>Asians (of any sort) fit more in the latter group than the former.
Greeks are the darkest skinned Europeans, I suppose.
But they aren't as dark skinned as Asians.
>>>
>>>Rob says he's black, but you could just as legitimately say he's
>>>white; I have no idea (and it really isn't important) what he says of
>>>himself.
>>
>>No, but if someone with dark skin says
>>they're white, then it does seem a bit odd.
>
>Why?
Because they're not white :-)
It would be as odd as me saying I'm black,
and then everyone agreeing that I am
indeed black, even though I have white skin.
That's what you do in the US.
Weird.
>>In what sense are dark skinned people "white"?
>
>Because they aren't "black"? Basically, here, you are what you say you
>are. If you identify as "white", then you're white.
Well okay.
I'll be Chinese on Monday, black on Tuesday,
white on Wednesday, and mixed race for the rest of the
week! :-)
What a strange system! :-)
>>Also, it's said that America will soon no longer
>>be majority white. Everyone here would assume that
>>means that the US will soon no longer be of majority
>>European descent. But since your system is different,
>>perhaps the US is already no longer of majority
>>European descent?
>
>It'll be a long time before that happens. What with all the Latin
>Americans comming here, the country becomes more white all the time.
But Latin Americans are not white! :-)
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
Padraic Brown
<freds...@email.com> wrote:
Indeed not! I had introduced the issue of America being ready for a
black president. Stands to reason that if we've already _had_ a black
president, then there's no issue at all in having another.
>Just pointing out race isn't that big of an issue.
Hear hear. A penny to a pound says that Warren G. Harding will _not_
be mentioned at all if Obama comes close to the White House. He'll be
hailed as the first black president.
>No, he did not identify himself as African-American, denying it as a
>lingering rumor which was started by a neighbor in his childhood because of
>his dark complexion. It was a minor issue raised by folks whose memory of
>his family was longer than his, and it didn't make a difference to the
>public.
If only it could be a "minor issue" these days!
Padraic Brown
>In article <d8lb83l7ng5d27kuq...@4ax.com>, Padraic Brown says...
>>
>>On 29 Jun 2007 17:20:14 -0700, Emma <em...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Gosh. So it's not unconstitutional?
>>
>>What is specifically unconstitutional is for the Federal Government to
>>establish a national state church. So, we can't an analogue to your
>>Church of England.
>>
>>>The individual states just choose not to have
>>>a state church?
>>
>>I'm sure they've adopted similar language in their own constitutions.
>>There are no states anymore that have established churches. Probably
>>if one tried to establish a church, the case would end up before the
>>Supreme Court and the state would be compelled to back down.
>
>I see.
>
>Yes, I notice that this is a subject that some
>people get passionate about. Rob doesn't even
>like the idea of Christmas trees in schools.
>Personally, I think that's going a bit far.
I know. There is a bias against Christianity going on. Christmas is
just one example.
>But if the debate on the issue of religion
>in schools always gets very heated, then I can
>understand why everyone ends up taking extreme
>positions.
>Linda was also quite passionate about it. I suppose
>you all are.
>
>Does it bother you one way or the other?
It doesn't bother me that there is no official prayer in public
schools and all that. It certainly doesn't bother me that there are no
more "religious tests" in order to hold public office. What bothers me
more is the sort of underhanded struggle against religion in the
broader culture. Taking the above example, it is increasingly
difficult to find a school system that has "Christmas break" anymore.
They all have "winter break" now. If you can find a Christmas tree, it
isn't even a Christmas tree anymore but a "holiday tree". We regularly
hear about cases that demand the Ten Commandments be removed from this
or that courthouse. There's always some nut that wants to remove
"under God" from the pledge of allegiance or "In God We Trust" from
the money. (Frankly I don't have a problem with the latter; there's
not enough room on a coin for it anyway.)
All these little things simply add up to a kind of confusion over
what's really going on in the country.
>My daughter made a Happy Eid card in school, and
>that outraged me, and I may well complain if it
>happens again, but I wouldn't go in all guns blazing
>like Americans probably would.
Well, that's cos you lot aren't allowed to have guns. It's practically
mandatory over here. ;)
>Other parents were as baffled and annoyed as I
>was by it (there was only one Muslim child in the
>class!), but I suppose we're more used to religion
>in schools here. Whereas it's virtually a capital
>offence over there!
>
>I mean, will it change the weather? Is it really
>such a big deal?
I have the feeling that in our present school systems, making a "happy
Eid" card would not be too surprising an assignment. Now, try to make
a "happy Christmas" card in school, then the ACLU will get all up in
arms and the teacher will be sacked.
There was a recent Supreme Court case of a school boy who made a
banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and was suspended from school.
Officially, they decried his "pro-drug" message, but one wonders if he
wasn't suspended as much or more for proclaiming the name Jesus; but
I'd bet that if he wrote "Bong Hits 4 Mohammed", he'd have been hailed
as a leader in the search for tolerance.
>>>>>I thought Arabs are "white" according to your
>>>>>system.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but he's not Arab.
>>>
>>>
>>>OK, but that is still weird, because I don't know
>>>of any Arab nations where they have white skin.
>>>White skin is unique to Europe.
>>
>>And Asia.
>
>Asia? But Asians are generally very dark.
They are? Perhaps down in India (recall that we call _them_ Indians!).
Most Asians are rather lighter complected than most blacks. Just goes
to show inadequate these terms really are!
>I'm thinking of the Asians here, who are mainly Pakistani
>and Indian. They have very dark skin.
>
>
>>And it's not like all Europeans are lilly white either! Just
>>as there is a wide range of skin tones that can be called "black"
>>there are also a wide range of skin tones that are called "white".
>>Asians (of any sort) fit more in the latter group than the former.
>
>Greeks are the darkest skinned Europeans, I suppose.
>But they aren't as dark skinned as Asians.
They're darker than some, lighter than others.
>>>>Rob says he's black, but you could just as legitimately say he's
>>>>white; I have no idea (and it really isn't important) what he says of
>>>>himself.
>>>
>>>No, but if someone with dark skin says
>>>they're white, then it does seem a bit odd.
>>
>>Why?
>
>
>Because they're not white :-)
>
>It would be as odd as me saying I'm black,
>and then everyone agreeing that I am
>indeed black, even though I have white skin.
>That's what you do in the US.
>Weird.
It is weird. There are people who have "multiethnic" backgrounds. Some
have light coloured skin (and are to all appearances "white") yet call
themselves black because they identify with that portion of their
family heritage.
Somewhere in this thread, Warren G. Harding was mentioned as the first
black president of the US. (And a _Republican_ to boot.) While it
seems he didn't identify himself as black he is being so identified as
such now. If you look at a picture of the man, you'd think "white guy"
immediately. But if has some black ancestry, then it is every bit as
valid to calll him "black" or "African American" as it is to call him
"white".
Weird indeed!
>>>In what sense are dark skinned people "white"?
>>
>>Because they aren't "black"? Basically, here, you are what you say you
>>are. If you identify as "white", then you're white.
>
>Well okay.
>I'll be Chinese on Monday, black on Tuesday,
>white on Wednesday, and mixed race for the rest of the
>week! :-)
>What a strange system! :-)
Let's just say some people can get away with it better than others.
>>>Also, it's said that America will soon no longer
>>>be majority white. Everyone here would assume that
>>>means that the US will soon no longer be of majority
>>>European descent. But since your system is different,
>>>perhaps the US is already no longer of majority
>>>European descent?
>>
>>It'll be a long time before that happens. What with all the Latin
>>Americans comming here, the country becomes more white all the time.
>
>But Latin Americans are not white! :-)
They're Hispanic, and Spain is a European country. Do you consider
Spanish people to be "black"?? Here, "Hispanic" is often taken as a
separate ethnic term, but really they're either "white" (being
Hispanic) or "Native American" (being Indians) or "mixed white and
Native" (being an admixture of the two). Some are indeed "black",
especially from the Caribbean or Brasil.
How inadequate the terms are!
Fred A Stover
He wasn't mentioned when Dick Gregory and Jesse Jackson ran, and you're
probably right. .
>
> >No, he did not identify himself as African-American, denying it as a
> >lingering rumor which was started by a neighbor in his childhood because
of
> >his dark complexion. It was a minor issue raised by folks whose memory
of
> >his family was longer than his, and it didn't make a difference to the
> >public.
>
> If only it could be a "minor issue" these days!
It would depend on the person and the public image of the man. For a
poliltician who runs to news events like a lawyer chasing an ambulance, it
would be an issue, but it would not be an issue for, Colin Powell, for
example.
Padraic Brown
<freds...@email.com> wrote:
>> If only it could be a "minor issue" these days!
>
>It would depend on the person and the public image of the man. For a
>poliltician who runs to news events like a lawyer chasing an ambulance, it
>would be an issue, but it would not be an issue for, Colin Powell, for
>example.
It may not be an issue for certain candidates or even for many people
-- but I think it would be a major issue for the media.
Fred A Stover
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:37:34 GMT, "Fred A Stover"
> <freds...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >> If only it could be a "minor issue" these days!
> >
> >It would depend on the person and the public image of the man. For a
> >poliltician who runs to news events like a lawyer chasing an ambulance,
it
> >would be an issue, but it would not be an issue for, Colin Powell, for
> >example.
>
> It may not be an issue for certain candidates or even for many people
> -- but I think it would be a major issue for the media.
>
> Padraic
Good point! I think you're right.
Emma
>
>Emma says...
>
>>But if the debate on the issue of religion
>>in schools always gets very heated, then I can
>>understand why everyone ends up taking extreme
>>positions.
>>Linda was also quite passionate about it. I suppose
>>you all are.
>>
>>Does it bother you one way or the other?
>
>It doesn't bother me that there is no official prayer in public
>schools and all that. It certainly doesn't bother me that there are no
>more "religious tests" in order to hold public office. What bothers me
>more is the sort of underhanded struggle against religion in the
>broader culture. Taking the above example, it is increasingly
>difficult to find a school system that has "Christmas break" anymore.
>They all have "winter break" now.
Yes, that would seem to be a petty thing, because
obviously the majority of your population are
Christian.
>If you can find a Christmas tree, it
>isn't even a Christmas tree anymore but a "holiday tree".
Isn't that to get around the idea that it's
a religious symbol though?
State institutions in the US want to have
Christmas trees, so they re-name them to avoid
showing an alignment with a particular religion?
Actually, Christmas trees aren't religious symbols,
so I do think that's another slightly petty thing.
> We regularly
>hear about cases that demand the Ten Commandments be removed from this
>or that courthouse. There's always some nut that wants to remove
>"under God" from the pledge of allegiance or "In God We Trust" from
>the money. (Frankly I don't have a problem with the latter; there's
>not enough room on a coin for it anyway.)
I suppose the court house example might make me
a bit uneasy though, because you aren't a theocracy,
so I suppose there shouldn't be any attempt
to apply a sort of religious law in your
justice system.
The displaying of the ten commandments could
be seen as a religious bias in your justice system,
which you would obviously want to avoid.
I would have less of a problem with "In God we trust"
though, because that is a reference to your majority
culture.
>>My daughter made a Happy Eid card in school, and
>>that outraged me, and I may well complain if it
>>happens again, but I wouldn't go in all guns blazing
>>like Americans probably would.
>
>Well, that's cos you lot aren't allowed to have guns. It's practically
>mandatory over here. ;)
Yes, I suppose so :-)
>>Other parents were as baffled and annoyed as I
>>was by it (there was only one Muslim child in the
>>class!), but I suppose we're more used to religion
>>in schools here. Whereas it's virtually a capital
>>offence over there!
>>
>>I mean, will it change the weather? Is it really
>>such a big deal?
>
>I have the feeling that in our present school systems, making a "happy
>Eid" card would not be too surprising an assignment. Now, try to make
>a "happy Christmas" card in school, then the ACLU will get all up in
>arms and the teacher will be sacked.
I see.
Well I suppose making either card isn't really
the same as practising the religion.
That's why I wondered if I was making a big
thing of it.
It just seemed silly when there was only one
Muslim in the class, and it's unlikely that
the others will know any Muslims.
I suppose I was reacting against the way Islam
is given more attention than it deserves. I think
as a country we're trying hard to make Muslims feel
part of us, but that is obviously not working.
It seems the US is trying to do the same.
>There was a recent Supreme Court case of a school boy who made a
>banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and was suspended from school.
>Officially, they decried his "pro-drug" message, but one wonders if he
>wasn't suspended as much or more for proclaiming the name Jesus; but
>I'd bet that if he wrote "Bong Hits 4 Mohammed", he'd have been hailed
>as a leader in the search for tolerance.
You'll have to explain that sentence to me.
I don't know what that means.
>>>>No, but if someone with dark skin says
>>>>they're white, then it does seem a bit odd.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>
>>Because they're not white :-)
>>
>>It would be as odd as me saying I'm black,
>>and then everyone agreeing that I am
>>indeed black, even though I have white skin.
>>That's what you do in the US.
>>Weird.
>
>It is weird. There are people who have "multiethnic" backgrounds. Some
>have light coloured skin (and are to all appearances "white") yet call
>themselves black because they identify with that portion of their
>family heritage.
>
>Somewhere in this thread, Warren G. Harding was mentioned as the first
>black president of the US. (And a _Republican_ to boot.) While it
>seems he didn't identify himself as black he is being so identified as
>such now. If you look at a picture of the man, you'd think "white guy"
>immediately. But if has some black ancestry, then it is every bit as
>valid to calll him "black" or "African American" as it is to call him
>"white".
I see.
I suppose it comes down to how people identify
themselves.
>>>>Also, it's said that America will soon no longer
>>>>be majority white. Everyone here would assume that
>>>>means that the US will soon no longer be of majority
>>>>European descent. But since your system is different,
>>>>perhaps the US is already no longer of majority
>>>>European descent?
>>>
>>>It'll be a long time before that happens. What with all the Latin
>>>Americans comming here, the country becomes more white all the time.
>>
>>But Latin Americans are not white! :-)
>
>They're Hispanic, and Spain is a European country.
But they're Hispanic rather than Spanish.
Which means that they are not European.
> Do you consider
>Spanish people to be "black"?? Here, "Hispanic" is often taken as a
>separate ethnic term, but really they're either "white" (being
>Hispanic) or "Native American" (being Indians) or "mixed white and
>Native" (being an admixture of the two). Some are indeed "black",
>especially from the Caribbean or Brasil.
>
>How inadequate the terms are!
>
I would agree that Hispanic is a term of its own,
because they're generally mixed race, but
a certain type of mixed race eg. European, native
American and black.
That doesn't occur anywhere else in the world.
So it's specific to that part of America.
Actually, its quite amazing how the races have
mixed in that part of the world. I don't hear
of racial problems in South America. Maybe
I just don't get much news from there though.
Perhaps its their religion which has bound them
all together so well?
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
Padraic Brown
>In article <m2nc83p2uab16vv1k...@4ax.com>, Padraic Brown says...
>>
>>Emma says...
>>
>>>But if the debate on the issue of religion
>>>in schools always gets very heated, then I can
>>>understand why everyone ends up taking extreme
>>>positions.
>>>Linda was also quite passionate about it. I suppose
>>>you all are.
>>>
>>>Does it bother you one way or the other?
>>
>>It doesn't bother me that there is no official prayer in public
>>schools and all that. It certainly doesn't bother me that there are no
>>more "religious tests" in order to hold public office. What bothers me
>>more is the sort of underhanded struggle against religion in the
>>broader culture. Taking the above example, it is increasingly
>>difficult to find a school system that has "Christmas break" anymore.
>>They all have "winter break" now.
>
>
>Yes, that would seem to be a petty thing, because
>obviously the majority of your population are
>Christian.
>
>
>>If you can find a Christmas tree, it
>>isn't even a Christmas tree anymore but a "holiday tree".
>
>Isn't that to get around the idea that it's
>a religious symbol though?
Of _course_ it'a a religious symbol (however minor)! I just don't
think there's any reason why it can't be left at that. Why does the
issue have to be sanitised of its underlying religious nature?
>State institutions in the US want to have
>Christmas trees, so they re-name them to avoid
>showing an alignment with a particular religion?
>
>Actually, Christmas trees aren't religious symbols,
>so I do think that's another slightly petty thing.
It's not just the Christmas tree itself, but the whole idea of
sanitising religion out of the public consciousness. In other words,
while it is vital that the government not impose a specific state
religion, making it "official"; it goes way too far to expunge even
the idea of religion from public life.
>> We regularly
>>hear about cases that demand the Ten Commandments be removed from this
>>or that courthouse. There's always some nut that wants to remove
>>"under God" from the pledge of allegiance or "In God We Trust" from
>>the money. (Frankly I don't have a problem with the latter; there's
>>not enough room on a coin for it anyway.)
>
>I suppose the court house example might make me
>a bit uneasy though, because you aren't a theocracy,
>so I suppose there shouldn't be any attempt
>to apply a sort of religious law in your
>justice system.
The Ten Commandments are hardly "religious law"! If they are, then we
need to rescind all laws concerning murder, theft, perjury and the
like.
>The displaying of the ten commandments could
>be seen as a religious bias in your justice system,
>which you would obviously want to avoid.
What we wish to avoid is establishing a state religion -- not showing
some kind of "religious bias".
>I would have less of a problem with "In God we trust"
>though, because that is a reference to your majority
>culture.
As are the Ten Commandments and Christmas trees.
>>>My daughter made a Happy Eid card in school, and
>>>that outraged me, and I may well complain if it
>>>happens again, but I wouldn't go in all guns blazing
>>>like Americans probably would.
>>
>>>Other parents were as baffled and annoyed as I
>>>was by it (there was only one Muslim child in the
>>>class!), but I suppose we're more used to religion
>>>in schools here. Whereas it's virtually a capital
>>>offence over there!
>>>
>>>I mean, will it change the weather? Is it really
>>>such a big deal?
>>
>>I have the feeling that in our present school systems, making a "happy
>>Eid" card would not be too surprising an assignment. Now, try to make
>>a "happy Christmas" card in school, then the ACLU will get all up in
>>arms and the teacher will be sacked.
>
>I see.
>Well I suppose making either card isn't really
>the same as practising the religion.
Of course, you're right that it isn't. There is an uncomfortable doubt
standard going on, though. I can recall that in my mother's classroom
(she was a pre-school teacher), Jewish parets were regularly allowed
to bring in treats to the class around their holidays and explain them
to the kids; but Christmas was off limits. Easter, too.
>That's why I wondered if I was making a big
>thing of it.
>
>It just seemed silly when there was only one
>Muslim in the class, and it's unlikely that
>the others will know any Muslims.
Frankly, if I were living in India and sent my kids to a regular
(predominantly Hindu) public school, I would _not_ expect them to make
special concessions of that sort. I would not be comfortable with
_all_ the kids making Christmas cards, just because my one kid is
Christian. It's a majority Hindu country, and while I should expect
some basic tolerance of my minority religion, I wouldn't expect them
to bend over backward to do that sort of thing on my account.
Likewise here, I don't think we need to bend over backward to
accomodate people who are not Christians. We _should_ respect their
different religions, we obviously allow them to practice them freely,
we obviously do not restrict them. But we shouldn't be resticting our
_own_ "native" religious traditions either, just to make them feel
better!
I had a Hindu friend in college and we used to talk about these sorts
of issues. He was very strongly of the opinion that the US is a
Christian country and that his religion and other religions should not
expect _preferential_ treatment. In other words, Christianity should
be shoved into the background or expunged from American culture just
because there are Hindus and Moslems in the country.
>I suppose I was reacting against the way Islam
>is given more attention than it deserves. I think
>as a country we're trying hard to make Muslims feel
>part of us, but that is obviously not working.
>It seems the US is trying to do the same.
You might try picking your Moslems a little more carefully. I think
you've gotten a load of too many Moslems that want nothing to do with
your culture or your country or becoming integrated into either.
>You'll have to explain that sentence to me.
>I don't know what that means.
It's not important. Was just a side comment.
>>>>>No, but if someone with dark skin says
>>>>>they're white, then it does seem a bit odd.
>>>>
>>>>Why?
>>>
>>>
>>>Because they're not white :-)
>>>
>>>It would be as odd as me saying I'm black,
>>>and then everyone agreeing that I am
>>>indeed black, even though I have white skin.
>>>That's what you do in the US.
>>>Weird.
>>
>>It is weird. There are people who have "multiethnic" backgrounds. Some
>>have light coloured skin (and are to all appearances "white") yet call
>>themselves black because they identify with that portion of their
>>family heritage.
>>
>>Somewhere in this thread, Warren G. Harding was mentioned as the first
>>black president of the US. (And a _Republican_ to boot.) While it
>>seems he didn't identify himself as black he is being so identified as
>>such now. If you look at a picture of the man, you'd think "white guy"
>>immediately. But if has some black ancestry, then it is every bit as
>>valid to calll him "black" or "African American" as it is to call him
>>"white".
>
>
>I see.
>I suppose it comes down to how people identify
>themselves.
Exactly. It's not just a matter of "saying you're black". It kind of
helps the matter if you have a real connection. If I had 100% European
ancestors and live in a predominantly black area, I wouldn't say I'm
black. If I had a black grandparent and lived in a predominantly black
area and strongly identified with black culture, then I would be more
likely to say I'm black, even if I don't look like a typical black
person.
>>>>>Also, it's said that America will soon no longer
>>>>>be majority white. Everyone here would assume that
>>>>>means that the US will soon no longer be of majority
>>>>>European descent. But since your system is different,
>>>>>perhaps the US is already no longer of majority
>>>>>European descent?
>>>>
>>>>It'll be a long time before that happens. What with all the Latin
>>>>Americans comming here, the country becomes more white all the time.
>>>
>>>But Latin Americans are not white! :-)
>>
>>They're Hispanic, and Spain is a European country.
>
>But they're Hispanic rather than Spanish.
They're Hispanic because half their ancestry is European.
>Which means that they are not European.
But we already know that you don't have to be "European" to be
"white". So I am unclear on your issue.
>> Do you consider
>>Spanish people to be "black"?? Here, "Hispanic" is often taken as a
>>separate ethnic term, but really they're either "white" (being
>>Hispanic) or "Native American" (being Indians) or "mixed white and
>>Native" (being an admixture of the two). Some are indeed "black",
>>especially from the Caribbean or Brasil.
>>
>>How inadequate the terms are!
>>
>
>I would agree that Hispanic is a term of its own,
>because they're generally mixed race, but
>a certain type of mixed race eg. European, native
>American and black.
Most don't have any African ancestry. Most "Hispanics" are either full
Native American or mixed European and Navite American.
>That doesn't occur anywhere else in the world.
>So it's specific to that part of America.
>
>Actually, its quite amazing how the races have
>mixed in that part of the world. I don't hear
>of racial problems in South America. Maybe
>I just don't get much news from there though.
It's probably just too damned confusing. But that's not to say they've
got a utopian and colour blind society going on down there. There has
been considerable discrimination against Indios (Natives) and mestizos
(mixed).
>Perhaps its their religion which has bound them
>all together so well?
Well, both slave owners and slaves were (largely Protestant)
Christians here in the US and that didn't really help matters any. It
wasn't until well into the 20th century that the churches were
desegregated. Even now, there is considerable self-segregation of
churches (not all of it because of prejudice, but simply because of
congregation of similar cultural and traditional practices).
Roy Jose Lorr
> It's silly in that Obama has one white parent and one black parent,
> and looks color-wise like a mixture of the two, but our system,
> conceived
> in prejudice, calls him "black". That's because racial prejudice
> is founded on silly notions of "purity", so anything that
> isn't "pure" white is considered "black".
Racial prejudice is nature's norm. No one escapes it.
Blacks are themselves acutely aware of shades of skin color
among themselves, giving rise to several important
exclusionary categories, echoing the stigma inherent in all
prejudicial racial hierarchies. As for Obama being
categorized as 'black', he is labeled as such correctly...
black is the dominant gene in the mixture.
Emma
>
>>
>>>If you can find a Christmas tree, it
>>>isn't even a Christmas tree anymore but a "holiday tree".
>>
>>Isn't that to get around the idea that it's
>>a religious symbol though?
>
>Of _course_ it'a a religious symbol (however minor)!
I suppose that depends on your definition of a
religious symbol. I would think that, to most people,
the Christmas tree isn't part of Christianity.
> I just don't
>think there's any reason why it can't be left at that. Why does the
>issue have to be sanitised of its underlying religious nature?
Well I do agree that it
seems silly to call it a Holiday Tree.
But I also think it's silly
to be offended by a Christmas tree.
But if the only way to have a Christmas tree is
by calling it a Holiday Tree, then I suppose
that's what you have to do. It's ridiculous
though IMO.
>It's not just the Christmas tree itself, but the whole idea of
>sanitising religion out of the public consciousness. In other words,
>while it is vital that the government not impose a specific state
>religion, making it "official"; it goes way too far to expunge even
>the idea of religion from public life.
Yes, I think there should be a sensible balance.
If something isn't harmful, then why ban it?
>>> We regularly
>>>hear about cases that demand the Ten Commandments be removed from this
>>>or that courthouse. There's always some nut that wants to remove
>>>"under God" from the pledge of allegiance or "In God We Trust" from
>>>the money. (Frankly I don't have a problem with the latter; there's
>>>not enough room on a coin for it anyway.)
>>
>>I suppose the court house example might make me
>>a bit uneasy though, because you aren't a theocracy,
>>so I suppose there shouldn't be any attempt
>>to apply a sort of religious law in your
>>justice system.
>
>The Ten Commandments are hardly "religious law"! If they are, then we
>need to rescind all laws concerning murder, theft, perjury and the
>like.
I think the displaying of the Ten Commandments
would make me uncomfortable though. They are
from Jewish/Christian scripture. Your laws
may be based on Christianity, but they have
been expanded and adapted and made applicable
to modern culture. We don't want to go the
way of Islam and return to basic Medieval laws.
>>I would have less of a problem with "In God we trust"
>>though, because that is a reference to your majority
>>culture.
>
>As are the Ten Commandments and Christmas trees.
But Christmas trees don't make demands on anyone.
Religious laws do affect people though, as we see in
Islamic countries.
>>>
>>>I have the feeling that in our present school systems, making a "happy
>>>Eid" card would not be too surprising an assignment. Now, try to make
>>>a "happy Christmas" card in school, then the ACLU will get all up in
>>>arms and the teacher will be sacked.
>>
>>I see.
>>Well I suppose making either card isn't really
>>the same as practising the religion.
>
>Of course, you're right that it isn't. There is an uncomfortable doubt
>standard going on, though. I can recall that in my mother's classroom
>(she was a pre-school teacher), Jewish parets were regularly allowed
>to bring in treats to the class around their holidays and explain them
>to the kids; but Christmas was off limits. Easter, too.
Yes, I think that can be a problem. Not Judaism though.
Not here anyway. Judaism is sidelined in favour of
Islam, which annoys me, because Judaism has a long
tradition here. But Jews don't demand their rights,
whereas Muslim groups never stop making demands.
>
>Frankly, if I were living in India and sent my kids to a regular
>(predominantly Hindu) public school, I would _not_ expect them to make
>special concessions of that sort. I would not be comfortable with
>_all_ the kids making Christmas cards, just because my one kid is
>Christian. It's a majority Hindu country, and while I should expect
>some basic tolerance of my minority religion, I wouldn't expect them
>to bend over backward to do that sort of thing on my account.
Absolutely right. I agree with you.
>Likewise here, I don't think we need to bend over backward to
>accomodate people who are not Christians. We _should_ respect their
>different religions, we obviously allow them to practice them freely,
>we obviously do not restrict them. But we shouldn't be resticting our
>_own_ "native" religious traditions either, just to make them feel
>better!
Yes, I think you're right.
>I had a Hindu friend in college and we used to talk about these sorts
>of issues. He was very strongly of the opinion that the US is a
>Christian country and that his religion and other religions should not
>expect _preferential_ treatment. In other words, Christianity should
>be shoved into the background or expunged from American culture just
>because there are Hindus and Moslems in the country.
Yes.
>>I suppose I was reacting against the way Islam
>>is given more attention than it deserves. I think
>>as a country we're trying hard to make Muslims feel
>>part of us, but that is obviously not working.
>>It seems the US is trying to do the same.
>
>You might try picking your Moslems a little more carefully. I think
>you've gotten a load of too many Moslems that want nothing to do with
>your culture or your country or becoming integrated into either.
Oh yes, loads.
Did you hear about the latest botched terror attacks?
If it wasn't so serious, it would be quite comical,
because they tried to leave parked cars in the middle
of London! I mean, anything which is stationery for
more than 60 seconds is ticketed, wheel clamped
and towed away!
And then they tried to drive a car through some narrow
concrete bollards into Glasgow airport! When that
failed, one of them tried to open the boot of the car, but
that was stuck! So he doused himself in
petrol, shouted "Allah" a few times, and was promptly
floored by a swinging punch from one of the airport
workers!
That worker has got his own tribute website now btw.
Scots are offering to "buy him a pint" :-)
>>I see.
>>I suppose it comes down to how people identify
>>themselves.
>
>Exactly. It's not just a matter of "saying you're black". It kind of
>helps the matter if you have a real connection. If I had 100% European
>ancestors and live in a predominantly black area, I wouldn't say I'm
>black. If I had a black grandparent and lived in a predominantly black
>area and strongly identified with black culture, then I would be more
>likely to say I'm black, even if I don't look like a typical black
>person.
Yes, that makes sense.
>>>>>>Also, it's said that America will soon no longer
>>>>>>be majority white. Everyone here would assume that
>>>>>>means that the US will soon no longer be of majority
>>>>>>European descent. But since your system is different,
>>>>>>perhaps the US is already no longer of majority
>>>>>>European descent?
>>>>>
>>>>>It'll be a long time before that happens. What with all the Latin
>>>>>Americans comming here, the country becomes more white all the time.
>>>>
>>>>But Latin Americans are not white! :-)
>>>
>>>They're Hispanic, and Spain is a European country.
>>
>>But they're Hispanic rather than Spanish.
>
>They're Hispanic because half their ancestry is European.
>
>>Which means that they are not European.
>
>But we already know that you don't have to be "European" to be
>"white". So I am unclear on your issue.
Well, no, I disagree. As you know, in Europe,
we only use the term "white" for Europeans.
Basically, in the US, everyone who isn't an
African-American is termed as "white".
Some European countries have few Africans, so
I suppose you would call their populations totally
"white", even though they may have large Arab
populations (France, for instance).
But we would say that France is 95% white, and
5% Muslim.
Actually, now I think about it, we tend to use
the word "Muslim" to mean non-white too. Although
there are some converts.
>>Actually, its quite amazing how the races have
>>mixed in that part of the world. I don't hear
>>of racial problems in South America. Maybe
>>I just don't get much news from there though.
>
>It's probably just too damned confusing. But that's not to say they've
>got a utopian and colour blind society going on down there. There has
>been considerable discrimination against Indios (Natives) and mestizos
>(mixed).
I didn't know that.
>>Perhaps its their religion which has bound them
>>all together so well?
>
>Well, both slave owners and slaves were (largely Protestant)
>Christians here in the US and that didn't really help matters any. It
>wasn't until well into the 20th century that the churches were
>desegregated. Even now, there is considerable self-segregation of
>churches (not all of it because of prejudice, but simply because of
>congregation of similar cultural and traditional practices).
>
I can't make up my mind if this is a good thing
or a bad thing. What I mean is, it doesn't seem right
for races to be segregating, even if its self-segregation.
But then again, my way of worshipping might not suit
others, and vice versa.
I think I would expect to see a few white faces in a black
church, and a few black faces in a white church, otherwise
I would wonder if there's something more sinister going
on.
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
Padraic Brown
>Well I do agree that it
>seems silly to call it a Holiday Tree.
>But I also think it's silly
>to be offended by a Christmas tree.
Exactly.
>But if the only way to have a Christmas tree is
>by calling it a Holiday Tree, then I suppose
>that's what you have to do. It's ridiculous
>though IMO.
Well, no. The other alternative is to cast off the "political correct"
nonsense that says we can't dare offend some minority and must rename
Christmas out into the void it belongs in.
The point of displaying the Ten Commandments isn't to hearken to some
medievalism but to acknowledge that our country's laws are ultimately
founded on divine principles. _Very_ un-politically correct I know!
>>>I would have less of a problem with "In God we trust"
>>>though, because that is a reference to your majority
>>>culture.
>>
>>As are the Ten Commandments and Christmas trees.
>
>
>But Christmas trees don't make demands on anyone.
>Religious laws do affect people though, as we see in
>Islamic countries.
Yes, well, heaven forbid we make a demand on people like "don't murder
anyone" or "don't steal"!
Maybe if we could nail the Ten Commandments up on every mosque and
sharia court in the Middle East, there would be some effect on people!
;)
>Did you hear about the latest botched terror attacks?
London (thwarted)? and Edinburgh (no one hurt)?
It's sad. I wonder if those nutters really think they're making a
point in some kind of dispute? Near as I can figure, the only point
the Islamowankers are making is "we are barbarians and don't know how
to deal with you in a civilised fashion".
>If it wasn't so serious, it would be quite comical,
>because they tried to leave parked cars in the middle
>of London! I mean, anything which is stationery for
>more than 60 seconds is ticketed, wheel clamped
>and towed away!
>
>And then they tried to drive a car through some narrow
>concrete bollards into Glasgow airport! When that
>failed, one of them tried to open the boot of the car, but
>that was stuck! So he doused himself in
>petrol, shouted "Allah" a few times, and was promptly
>floored by a swinging punch from one of the airport
>workers!
Alba gu bragh!
>That worker has got his own tribute website now btw.
>Scots are offering to "buy him a pint" :-)
Now, there's an idea -- England could probably be rid of its
Islamoterrorist problem in short order if the Government would buy a
pint for anyone who coshes one of the rogues.
>>>>>>>Also, it's said that America will soon no longer
>>>>>>>be majority white. Everyone here would assume that
>>>>>>>means that the US will soon no longer be of majority
>>>>>>>European descent. But since your system is different,
>>>>>>>perhaps the US is already no longer of majority
>>>>>>>European descent?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It'll be a long time before that happens. What with all the Latin
>>>>>>Americans comming here, the country becomes more white all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>>But Latin Americans are not white! :-)
>>>>
>>>>They're Hispanic, and Spain is a European country.
>>>
>>>But they're Hispanic rather than Spanish.
>>
>>They're Hispanic because half their ancestry is European.
>>
>>>Which means that they are not European.
>>
>>But we already know that you don't have to be "European" to be
>>"white". So I am unclear on your issue.
>
>
>Well, no, I disagree. As you know, in Europe,
>we only use the term "white" for Europeans.
I see.
>>>Actually, its quite amazing how the races have
>>>mixed in that part of the world. I don't hear
>>>of racial problems in South America. Maybe
>>>I just don't get much news from there though.
>>
>>It's probably just too damned confusing. But that's not to say they've
>>got a utopian and colour blind society going on down there. There has
>>been considerable discrimination against Indios (Natives) and mestizos
>>(mixed).
>
>I didn't know that.
Discrimination knows no boundaries!
>>>Perhaps its their religion which has bound them
>>>all together so well?
>>
>>Well, both slave owners and slaves were (largely Protestant)
>>Christians here in the US and that didn't really help matters any. It
>>wasn't until well into the 20th century that the churches were
>>desegregated. Even now, there is considerable self-segregation of
>>churches (not all of it because of prejudice, but simply because of
>>congregation of similar cultural and traditional practices).
>>
>
>I can't make up my mind if this is a good thing
>or a bad thing. What I mean is, it doesn't seem right
>for races to be segregating, even if its self-segregation.
>But then again, my way of worshipping might not suit
>others, and vice versa.
Self segregation isn't so horrible because it's _self_ imposed. We
choose who we hang out with and who we go to church with. I really
don't think the answer is enforced _amalgamation_ either -- in other
words, mixing everybody together all the time.
>I think I would expect to see a few white faces in a black
>church, and a few black faces in a white church, otherwise
>I would wonder if there's something more sinister going
>on.
Well, if the neighbourhood is all black in population, then I wouldn't
expect any whites in the church (and vice versa). In more mixed areas,
churches are more mixed; but I have no real problem with choosing a
mixed or self-segregated church. In some cases, you don't have much of
a choice -- I don't think there _are_ any all black Orthodox or
Eastern Catholic churches!
Emma
>
>On 3 Jul 2007 08:46:29 -0700, Emma <em...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>But if the only way to have a Christmas tree is
>>by calling it a Holiday Tree, then I suppose
>>that's what you have to do. It's ridiculous
>>though IMO.
>
>Well, no. The other alternative is to cast off the "political correct"
>nonsense that says we can't dare offend some minority and must rename
>Christmas out into the void it belongs in.
Yes, so why doesn't that happen?
Here, it tends to be a handful of councillors
who make decisions like this. In other words,
it's a minority thing to be PC, but these
people are generally quite vocal. I suppose the rest of
us are just too apathetic to bother doing anything
about it. We just say how silly it is. It generally
happens in areas with left-wing councils.
Oh, that reminds me. I went to a very PC funeral
recently. It was the first one I'd been to which
wasn't overtly Christian. It was a sort of catch-all
funeral. A little bit of hope in an afterlife, a little
bit of wishing in some sort of continuation on earth,
nearly Christian words during the committal (but
not quite). It offended nobody, but didn't really
help anyone either. Gosh, the epitome of wishy-washy!
Now even funerals are trying to be all things to
all people!
It was also the first time I felt like laughing at
a funeral. I know that sounds awful, but the
minister was just talking so much rubbish with such
an earnest expression, that I thought for one terrible
moment that I was going to laugh!
>
>The point of displaying the Ten Commandments isn't to hearken to some
>medievalism but to acknowledge that our country's laws are ultimately
>founded on divine principles. _Very_ un-politically correct I know!
Well okay. Perhaps I'm making a big thing of it.
I suppose that, in reality, it wouldn't make much
difference to justice whether it was displayed there
or not.
> Did you hear about the latest botched terror attacks?
>
>London (thwarted)? and Edinburgh (no one hurt)?
>
>It's sad. I wonder if those nutters really think they're making a
>point in some kind of dispute? Near as I can figure, the only point
>the Islamowankers are making is "we are barbarians and don't know how
>to deal with you in a civilised fashion".
Yes, although they were working as doctors in
parts of our country, so they were good actors.
We all know they're a minority, but we're all
going to be a bit more cautious now.
>>If it wasn't so serious, it would be quite comical,
>>because they tried to leave parked cars in the middle
>>of London! I mean, anything which is stationery for
>>more than 60 seconds is ticketed, wheel clamped
>>and towed away!
>>
>>And then they tried to drive a car through some narrow
>>concrete bollards into Glasgow airport! When that
>>failed, one of them tried to open the boot of the car, but
>>that was stuck! So he doused himself in
>>petrol, shouted "Allah" a few times, and was promptly
>>floored by a swinging punch from one of the airport
>>workers!
>
>Alba gu bragh!
I haven't a clue what that means :-)
>>That worker has got his own tribute website now btw.
>>Scots are offering to "buy him a pint" :-)
>
>Now, there's an idea -- England could probably be rid of its
>Islamoterrorist problem in short order if the Government would buy a
>pint for anyone who coshes one of the rogues.
Well that would go down especially well with the
Scots :-) They are the big drinkers.
>
>>I think I would expect to see a few white faces in a black
>>church, and a few black faces in a white church, otherwise
>>I would wonder if there's something more sinister going
>>on.
>
>Well, if the neighbourhood is all black in population, then I wouldn't
>expect any whites in the church (and vice versa). In more mixed areas,
>churches are more mixed; but I have no real problem with choosing a
>mixed or self-segregated church. In some cases, you don't have much of
>a choice -- I don't think there _are_ any all black Orthodox or
>Eastern Catholic churches!
>
I drive past a Somali church sometimes, and they appear to
be totally Somali. And they dress like Muslims. They
all wear white veils. It's definitely a Christian
church though. But I wouldn't feel comfortable going
into that church. I would be in a minority of one.
So I suppose I can understand how churches develop
separate identities, but I don't know if that should
still happen several centuries down the line, as
happens in the US. I mean, black and white
Americans all have basically the same culture.
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
Padraic Brown
>>It's sad. I wonder if those nutters really think they're making a
>>point in some kind of dispute? Near as I can figure, the only point
>>the Islamowankers are making is "we are barbarians and don't know how
>>to deal with you in a civilised fashion".
>
>Yes, although they were working as doctors in
>parts of our country, so they were good actors.
Even barbarians get sick!
>We all know they're a minority, but we're all
>going to be a bit more cautious now.
>
>
>>>If it wasn't so serious, it would be quite comical,
>>>because they tried to leave parked cars in the middle
>>>of London! I mean, anything which is stationery for
>>>more than 60 seconds is ticketed, wheel clamped
>>>and towed away!
>>>
>>>And then they tried to drive a car through some narrow
>>>concrete bollards into Glasgow airport! When that
>>>failed, one of them tried to open the boot of the car, but
>>>that was stuck! So he doused himself in
>>>petrol, shouted "Allah" a few times, and was promptly
>>>floored by a swinging punch from one of the airport
>>>workers!
>>
>>Alba gu bragh!
>
>I haven't a clue what that means :-)
Bully for Scotland!
>>>I think I would expect to see a few white faces in a black
>>>church, and a few black faces in a white church, otherwise
>>>I would wonder if there's something more sinister going
>>>on.
>>
>>Well, if the neighbourhood is all black in population, then I wouldn't
>>expect any whites in the church (and vice versa). In more mixed areas,
>>churches are more mixed; but I have no real problem with choosing a
>>mixed or self-segregated church. In some cases, you don't have much of
>>a choice -- I don't think there _are_ any all black Orthodox or
>>Eastern Catholic churches!
>>
>
>I drive past a Somali church sometimes, and they appear to
>be totally Somali. And they dress like Muslims. They
>all wear white veils. It's definitely a Christian
>church though. But I wouldn't feel comfortable going
>into that church. I would be in a minority of one.
Ack! Silly of me to forget the Ethiopian Orthodox!
>So I suppose I can understand how churches develop
>separate identities, but I don't know if that should
>still happen several centuries down the line, as
>happens in the US. I mean, black and white
>Americans all have basically the same culture.
Basically, but there is still a lot of room for division of this sort.
Emma
>
>Rob Strom wrote:
>> It's silly in that Obama has one white parent and one black parent,
>> and looks color-wise like a mixture of the two, but our system,
>> conceived
>> in prejudice, calls him "black". That's because racial prejudice
>> is founded on silly notions of "purity", so anything that
>> isn't "pure" white is considered "black".
>
>Racial prejudice is nature's norm. No one escapes it.
Actually, I don't think that's true.
And incidentally, I don't agree with Rob either,
because I don't think it's prejudiced to call someone
who looks black, "black". It's prejudiced to call
someone who looks black "white" though. Or vice versa.
Because that is denial for the sake of prejudice IMO.
But anyway, back to your point...
I think it's human nature for us all to separate into
groups, but I don't think that necessarily means racial
groups. We sometimes separate into religious and
cultural groups. Jews, for instance, come from many
different racial groups, but they belong to one religious
group.
>Blacks are themselves acutely aware of shades of skin color
>among themselves, giving rise to several important
>exclusionary categories, echoing the stigma inherent in all
>prejudicial racial hierarchies. As for Obama being
>categorized as 'black', he is labeled as such correctly...
>black is the dominant gene in the mixture.
He looks black, so it would be silly to call him
"white". So if that's what you mean, then I agree.
--
***Emma***
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
Roy Jose Lorr
> In article <iuKdnSbGy7QdXhTb...@comcast.com>, Roy Jose Lorr says...
>
>>Rob Strom wrote:
>>
>>>It's silly in that Obama has one white parent and one black parent,
>>>and looks color-wise like a mixture of the two, but our system,
>>>conceived
>>>in prejudice, calls him "black". That's because racial prejudice
>>>is founded on silly notions of "purity", so anything that
>>>isn't "pure" white is considered "black".
>>
>>Racial prejudice is nature's norm. No one escapes it.
>
>
> Actually, I don't think that's true.
>
> And incidentally, I don't agree with Rob either,
> because I don't think it's prejudiced to call someone
> who looks black, "black". It's prejudiced to call
> someone who looks black "white" though. Or vice versa.
> Because that is denial for the sake of prejudice IMO.
>
> But anyway, back to your point...
>
> I think it's human nature for us all to separate into
> groups, but I don't think that necessarily means racial
> groups. We sometimes separate into religious and
> cultural groups. Jews, for instance, come from many
> different racial groups, but they belong to one religious
> group.
The social groups we join for whatever reason have little or
no effect on our natural inclinations. Nature's instincts
are indelible even though we may try mightily to suppress
them due to social pressures.
>
>
>
>
>>Blacks are themselves acutely aware of shades of skin color
>>among themselves, giving rise to several important
>>exclusionary categories, echoing the stigma inherent in all
>>prejudicial racial hierarchies. As for Obama being
>>categorized as 'black', he is labeled as such correctly...
>>black is the dominant gene in the mixture.
>
>
> He looks black, so it would be silly to call him
> "white". So if that's what you mean, then I agree.
He is black, that's why he looks it.