Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke6_37
I don't think you need to worry about being a goat. 
As the Pope's advisors state:
At times this mingling of politics, morals and religion has
taken on a Manichaean language that divides reality between absolute
Good and absolute Evil. In fact, after President George W. Bush spoke in
his day about challenging the “axis of evil” and stated it was the
USA’s duty to “free the world from evil” following the events of
September 11, 2001. Today President Trump steers the fight against a
wider, generic collective entity of the “bad” or even the “very bad.”
Sometimes the tones used by his supporters in some campaigns take on
meanings that we could define as “epic.”
These stances are based on Christian-Evangelical fundamentalist
principles dating from the beginning of the 20th Century that have been
gradually radicalized. These have moved on from a rejection of all that
is mundane – as politics was considered – to bringing a strong and
determined religious-moral influence to bear on democratic processes and
their results.
Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism: A surprising ecumenism by Antonio Spadaro - Marcelo Figueroa* http://www.laciviltacattolica.it/art...ing-ecumenism/
Every
Catholic should read that article, which was vetted and approved by the
Vatican as accurately reflecting the Pope's views on American politics.
Manichean dualism is an ancient heresy that was denounced by the Church
in late antiquity. But that doesn't mean it doesn't keep coming back.
CAF has allowed itself to become a platform for this sort of thinking,
which gives the false impression that it represents a legitimate
Catholic world view. It does not. |
I don't know anything about these particular "Pope's advisors" or
what they know about American politics. But I don't see this as
"Manichaean". What's "good" or even "gray" about ISIS, for example?
What's "good" or "gray" about true racism or "racial supremacy", for
that matter? What's "good" or "gray" about abortion on demand?
Some things really are good and some really are bad. But being persuaded
of the morality or immorality of a particular thing does not make one a
"Manichaean".
Aug 17, '17, 9:21 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: August 8, 2014
Posts: 5,627
Religion: Christian
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
I think you are intentionally conflating posts here.
Yes people have said you should defend yourself when someone is swinging
a club at you. However, nobody has said the car driver was justified
and defending himself by running people over.
I really don't care if his act was premeditated, it's still wrong and the court will sort that out at trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToeInTheWater
And many on CAF are
actually claiming "it was self defense, he was attacked first" or at
least aren't convinced the car crash was a premeditated act. Some even have claimed ALL car drivers have been tempted to run people over, and so we shouldn't judge Mr. Fields too harshly. 
So I wouldn't exactly take the responses on CAF as at all indicative of
larger society. I think World News has been mostly given over to the
extreme partisans on both sides, those with moderate opinions have
mostly walked away and shaken the dust from their feet.
Interesting though that the percentage who think the crash was
terrorism, and the percentage that actually agrees with the main point
of the "Unite the Right" rally, that the Confederate statues should NOT
come down, is about the same.
So apparently, people in the Real World actually ARE capable of holding
to a certain opinion on a political topic, yet NOT find themselves
obligated to defend the actions of every other person who holds that
same opinion.
Sadly, some on CAF seem to think that it's impossible to do that, to
actually criticize the actions of those "on my side", without
spontaneously combusting. So they will defend the indefensible, or at
least claim mitigating circumstances, or that "well their side is no
better, so don't judge my side so harshly". As another poster has said, I
doubt this "but what about THEIR sins, they're just as bad as mine"
strategy will work on Judgment Day. But what do I know, I'm just a
wishy-washy moderate, who will be joining the goats too for being
"lukewarm". 
|
__________________
FACTS MATTER!
|
Aug 17, '17, 9:23 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: September 23, 2010
Posts: 2,898
Religion: Thinking About Catholicism...
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner
I don't know anything about these
particular "Pope's advisors" or what they know about American politics.
But I don't see this as "Manichaean". What's "good" or even "gray" about
ISIS, for example? What's "good" or "gray" about true racism or "racial
supremacy", for that matter? What's "good" or "gray" about abortion on
demand?
Some things really are good and some really are bad. But being persuaded
of the morality or immorality of a particular thing does not make one a
"Manichaean".
|
The problem I have seen happening is not really about political
opinions, but how many people are quick to assume that everyone who
holds a particular political belief is "good" and that everyone who hold
a particular political belief is " bad". And if someone is "bad" then
it's okay to treat them badly because they "deserve" it.
Maybe Fields truly believed "all those Antifa protestors are evil and
trying to take over the country I love and turn into a godless Communist
hellhole" and hence that meant "they deserve to be run over".
If so, does that therefore justify his actions?
BTW, what is your definition of "true racism"?
|
Aug 17, '17, 9:27 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: September 23, 2010
Posts: 2,898
Religion: Thinking About Catholicism...
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo520
I think you are intentionally conflating posts here.
Yes people have said you should defend yourself when someone is swinging
a club at you. However, nobody has said the car driver was justified
and defending himself by running people over.
I really don't care if his act was premeditated, it's still wrong and the court will sort that out at trial.
|
I admit to paraphrasing, but not "intentionally conflating" if you are insinuating some nefarious motive on my part.
I concede that nobody has said the car driver definitely WAS justified,
but some have suggested he MAY have been justified. One has done so in
this very topic.
|
Aug 17, '17, 9:33 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: June 13, 2011
Posts: 4,739
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToeInTheWater
I concede that nobody has said the car
driver definitely WAS justified, but some have suggested he MAY have
been justified. One has done so in this very topic.
|
I've not said he may have been justified. I've said it may not
have been an intentional act. It could be manslaughter. It is
conceivable he was frightened and tried to escape. Even if that is so
he'd still be guilty of a crime.
__________________
We fear men so much, because we fear God so little. One
fear cures another. When man's terror scares you, turn your thoughts to
the wrath of God. — GK Chesterton
|
Aug 17, '17, 9:35 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: September 23, 2010
Posts: 2,898
Religion: Thinking About Catholicism...
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by exnihilo
I've not said he may have been justified.
I've said it may not have been an intentional act. It could be
manslaughter. It is conceivable he was frightened and tried to escape.
Even if that is so he'd still be guilty of a crime.
|
Thanks for the clarification.
|
Aug 17, '17, 9:36 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: October 28, 2016
Posts: 693
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToeInTheWater
Uh, there was one right above yours, but here it is again.
|
That post must have been posted after i started to reply but
before i finished. anyway, it certainly did not exist at the time of
your post so there must be more. The first i heard of the "self defense"
defense was your post, i'm just trying to read more about those claims.
|
Aug 17, '17, 9:51 am
|
|
Forum Elder
Greeter
Prayer Warrior
Forum Supporter
Book Club Member
|
|
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 43,924
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
I thought the percentage number impressive as to the number of people who want
to see the statue remain. That was the reason for the rally in the first place.
__________________
You created every part of me; you put me together in my mother's womb.
(13) when I was growing there in secret, you knew that I was
there----you saw me before I was born. (15) ~~~Psalm 139
|
Aug 17, '17, 9:55 am
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 36,739
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToeInTheWater
The problem I have seen happening is not
really about political opinions, but how many people are quick to assume
that everyone who holds a particular political belief is "good" and
that everyone who hold a particular political belief is " bad". And if
someone is "bad" then it's okay to treat them badly because they
"deserve" it.
Maybe Fields truly believed "all those Antifa protestors are evil and
trying to take over the country I love and turn into a godless Communist
hellhole" and hence that meant "they deserve to be run over".
If so, does that therefore justify his actions?
BTW, what is your definition of "true racism"?
|
We have no idea at this point what was in Fields' mind other than
to run over people, perhaps also to hit the car he hit. Possibly we
never will, for sure. But there will be at least peripheral information
from the investigation that can be helpful in forming a reasoned
judgment. And for the moment, the action itself seems to admit of only
one reasonably sure conclusion; that he intended to harm other people
with his vehicle. Other conclusions may reasonably follow, but at
present I, at least, have insufficient information to support any.
I don't know that posters on here consider particular people "good" or
"bad", though the treatment of Trump on here suggests that some him
"bad" in every respect. But I think posters here in general understand
that we can judge actions or ideas, but not souls, as I have seen people
say it time and again without objection from anyone.
As to my "definition" of racism, I don't know that I have a precise
verbal formulation for it. But I was convinced a very long time ago by a
Jesuit whom I considered a very wise and meritorious man, that true
"racism" is an active desire for harm to come to another, solely on the
basis of race, combined with a willingness to act on it if acceptable
opportunity presents. It is the exact opposite of "love". Neither is an
emotion, a judgment or even a bias.
That has seemed sufficient to me all these years. Because of it, I have been resistant
to disparate and often more facile views of it.
|
Aug 17, '17, 10:03 am
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 36,739
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by exnihilo
I've not said he may have been justified.
I've said it may not have been an intentional act. It could be
manslaughter. It is conceivable he was frightened and tried to escape.
Even if that is so he'd still be guilty of a crime.
|
In no way do I defend Fields and even less his actions. But it's
not beyond the realm of possibility that he might even be delusional.
One recalls the "Son of Sam" murderer who, most believe, really was
delusional, thinking a particular dog was Satan himself, and that the
dog ordered him to go kill people.
On the other hand, it appears that fellow Root was examined and found not to be delusional, and he's going to be executed.
As to Fields, we don't know much of anything yet.
|
Aug 17, '17, 10:05 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: September 23, 2010
Posts: 2,898
Religion: Thinking About Catholicism...
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner
We have no idea at this point what was in
Fields' mind other than to run over people, perhaps also to hit the car
he hit. Possibly we never will, for sure. But there will be at least
peripheral information from the investigation that can be helpful in
forming a reasoned judgment. And for the moment, the action itself seems
to admit of only one reasonably sure conclusion; that he intended to
harm other people with his vehicle. Other conclusions may reasonably
follow, but at present I, at least, have insufficient information to
support any.
|
That is certainly a reasonable assessment.
Quote:
|
I don't know that posters on here consider particular people "good" or
"bad", though the treatment of Trump on here suggests that some him
"bad" in every respect. But I think posters here in general understand
that we can judge actions or ideas, but not souls, as I have seen people
say it time and again without objection from anyone.
|
Well it seems most will provide themselves some wiggle room by
claiming "Well I only meant the vast majority of Leftists" or "Well I
only meant the vast majority of Rightists" if challenged about
statements that make broad generalities about one group or other.
Quote:
As to my "definition" of racism, I don't know that I have a precise
verbal formulation for it. But I was convinced a very long time ago by a
Jesuit whom I considered a very wise and meritorious man, that true
"racism" is an active desire for harm to come to another, solely on the
basis of race, combined with a willingness to act on it if acceptable
opportunity presents. It is the exact opposite of "love". Neither is an
emotion, a judgment or even a bias.
That has seemed sufficient to me all these years. Because of it, I have been resistant
to disparate and often more facile views of it.
|
So, if a person believes that the white race is superior to all
other races, but does not have any desire to harm those other races,
that person is not an actual racist?
So, do you think Lincoln was a racist, as many have claimed here? Since there are certainly quotes from him that suggest he did see the white race as superior to others but I can't think of any that suggest he wished for harm to come to non-white races.
|
Aug 17, '17, 10:21 am
|
 |
Senior Member
Prayer Warrior
|
|
Join Date: July 27, 2015
Posts: 13,879
Religion: Roman Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Move all the statues to a single park dedicated to the civil war, like
Appomattox, or one of the battlefields, they are places you have to go
to, not places you are forced to pass every day.
You drive towards a crowd, you are not defending yourself by
accelerating into them, its too much like the terror attacks in europe.
__________________
“Pray any way you like, so long as you do pray.”
 "May He be praised forever!"
|
Aug 17, '17, 10:36 am
|
 |
Veteran Member
|
|
Join Date: June 2, 2004
Posts: 9,000
Religion: Catholic (Latin Rite)
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFerri48
|
I think the car crash is domestic terrorism.
I think confederate statues are okay as long as other memorials honoring
slave owners (Washington Monument / Jefferson Memorial) is considered
okay. I'm not big on memorial statues. Just looking for some consistency
from people's outrage.
I need more info before I can respond regarding Trump's response. I
heard that his tweet regarding 'many sides' took place *before* the van
incident. If the many sides response was before the van incident, then
that was strong enough at that time. If after the van incident, then not
strong enough given one group killed someone from the other.
Does anyone have evidence as to the timeline of events?
__________________
Today, I want to be transformed, whole
and entire, into the love of Jesus and to offer myself, together with
Him, to the Heavenly Father. - St. Faustina Kowalska
|
Aug 17, '17, 10:37 am
|
|
Forum Master
|
|
Join Date: November 12, 2012
Posts: 15,743
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusaderbear
Move all the statues to a single park
dedicated to the civil war, like Appomattox, or one of the battlefields,
they are places you have to go to, not places you are forced to pass
every day.
You drive towards a crowd, you are not defending yourself by
accelerating into them, its too much like the terror attacks in europe.
|
I like that idea, that would be a great idea to have a park or museum were these things are at.
|
Aug 17, '17, 10:39 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: June 13, 2011
Posts: 4,739
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner
In no way do I defend Fields and even
less his actions. But it's not beyond the realm of possibility that he
might even be delusional. One recalls the "Son of Sam" murderer who,
most believe, really was delusional, thinking a particular dog was Satan
himself, and that the dog ordered him to go kill people.
On the other hand, it appears that fellow Root was examined and found not to be delusional, and he's going to be executed.
As to Fields, we don't know much of anything yet.
|
True. The act is very bad, but we don't know the culpability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToeInTheWater
So, do you think Lincoln was a racist, as many have claimed here? Since there are certainly quotes from him that suggest he did see the white race as superior to others but I can't think of any that suggest he wished for harm to come to non-white races.
|
Lincoln was an arch racist. If you read what he said to someone
who did not know who said it you could convince anyone the he was a
Grand Wizard of the Klan.
__________________
We fear men so much, because we fear God so little. One
fear cures another. When man's terror scares you, turn your thoughts to
the wrath of God. — GK Chesterton
|
Aug 17, '17, 10:41 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: June 13, 2011
Posts: 4,739
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusaderbear
Move all the statues to a single park
dedicated to the civil war, like Appomattox, or one of the battlefields,
they are places you have to go to, not places you are forced to pass
every day.
You drive towards a crowd, you are not defending yourself by
accelerating into them, its too much like the terror attacks in europe.
|
A lot of the statues are in cities to commemorate the local soldiers who died. Should we dig up graves and centralize them too?
__________________
We fear men so much, because we fear God so little. One
fear cures another. When man's terror scares you, turn your thoughts to
the wrath of God. — GK Chesterton
|
Aug 17, '17, 10:59 am
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 36,739
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToeInTheWater
That is certainly a reasonable assessment.
Well it seems most will provide themselves some wiggle room by claiming
"Well I only meant the vast majority of Leftists" or "Well I only meant
the vast majority of Rightists" if challenged about statements that make
broad generalities about one group or other.
So, if a person believes that the white race is superior to all other
races, but does not have any desire to harm those other races, that
person is not an actual racist?
So, do you think Lincoln was a racist, as many have claimed here? Since there are certainly quotes from him that suggest he did see the white race as superior to others but I can't think of any that suggest he wished for harm to come to non-white races.
|
If we properly (and continuously) inform ourselves, we certainly
can say some actions or ideas are "bad" or "good". We have a moral duty
to do that. I realize it's verbally economical to say things like "the
left believes..." or "the right believes..." One of the hazards of
communication, particularly typed communication. We can come close to
oral discourse as fast as our thoughts, but we can't type that fast.
If a person believes the white race is superior to all other races, yet
desires and does no harm to others because of it, then I do not consider
that person a true "racist". On the contrary, if such a person actually
desires the good of members of that race and acts in accordance with it
(say, donating to a traditionally black college or charity that
primarily serves the black poor) then I say such thoughts and acts are
examples of "love", regardless whether that person thinks his race is
superior.
Jesus, remember, didn't tell us we must have a positive emotional or
intellectual response toward anyone. He told us we must "love" them.
Very different things.
I think a lot of times we equate "prejudice" with "racism". But they're
not the same thing. We all like to claim we're not "prejudiced". But
what white person, for instance, would not have the "prejudice" to be
more fearful walking through a black neighborhood at night than he would
walking through a white one? And what black teenager would not be more
fearful of walking through a group of white teenagers in a "hillbilly
ghetto" than he would be in walking through a group of black ones? Both
emotional states reflect "prejudices". But neither is necessarily
"racism". One is merely an emotion. It might even be a matter of
intellectual persuasion. Racism is an act of the will.
|
Aug 17, '17, 11:10 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: September 23, 2010
Posts: 2,898
Religion: Thinking About Catholicism...
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner
I think a lot of times we equate
"prejudice" with "racism". But they're not the same thing. We all like
to claim we're not "prejudiced". But what white person, for instance,
would not have the "prejudice" to be more fearful walking through a
black neighborhood at night than he would walking through a white one?
And what black teenager would not be more fearful of walking through a
group of white teenagers in a "hillbilly ghetto" than he would be in
walking through a group of black ones? Both emotional states reflect
"prejudices". But neither is necessarily "racism". One is merely an
emotion. It might even be a matter of intellectual persuasion. Racism is
an act of the will.
|
Okay, I don't have an issue with your not equating racism with
prejudice. Though I'd be curious to know if you personally think Lincoln
was a racist or not based on your own definition.
So, do you think it is okay to have a "prejudice" and act on it? Let's
say in your scenario, the teenager is armed, and he thinks he sees
someone draw a gun from his pocket, and he quickly draws his own gun and
shoots. Let's say that same teenager would NOT have done that if he'd
been in a group of teens of his own race.
Is that action then justifiable?
Or what if a store-owner has a prejudice that black teenagers are more
likely to steal or be lazy. Two teens apply for a summer job, one is
white, one is black. The store-owner hires the white teen. The black
teen files a complaint with EEOC.
And he may say, "I didn't mean to harm the black teen, I was just doing
what's prudent for my business. My own life experience and that of
everyone I know, is that blacks are lazier than whites and more prone to
crime. That's why I didn't hire him. I don't hate him or anything."
Is that action then justifiable?
You may say yes, but I know many others will disagree with you.
|
Aug 17, '17, 11:16 am
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: August 13, 2007
Posts: 6,874
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToeInTheWater
I admit to paraphrasing, but not "intentionally conflating" if you are insinuating some nefarious motive on my part.
I concede that nobody has said the car driver definitely WAS justified,
but some have suggested he MAY have been justified. One has done so in
this very topic.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperLuigi
First, we don't even know if this was murder. It could have been self-defense.
|
|
Aug 17, '17, 11:39 am
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: July 19, 2004
Posts: 5,099
Religion: Syro-Malankara Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner
If a person believes the white race is
superior to all other races, yet desires and does no harm to others
because of it, then I do not consider that person a true "racist". On
the contrary, if such a person actually desires the good of members of
that race and acts in accordance with it (say, donating to a
traditionally black college or charity that primarily serves the black
poor) then I say such thoughts and acts are examples of "love",
regardless whether that person thinks his race is superior.
|
That person would be a moron, since there is no such thing as a
"white race." There's the human race with varying tints of skin tone.
I'd consider that person truly racist, just not one to act on it.
Quote:
|
Jesus, remember, didn't tell us we must have a positive emotional or
intellectual response toward anyone. He told us we must "love" them.
Very different things.
|
How is it loving to think anyone inherently inferior to another based on skin color??
|
Aug 17, '17, 12:07 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: June 13, 2011
Posts: 4,739
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by SyroMalankara
That person would be a moron, since there
is no such thing as a "white race." There's the human race with varying
tints of skin tone. I'd consider that person truly racist, just not one
to act on it.
|
That is a nice platitude. But there are obviously groups of humans
with distinct appearances. It's like saying there are no white cars
only cars. Or there are no blonde people only people. There is no need
to ignore our differences in order to get along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SyroMalankara
How is it loving to think anyone inherently inferior to another based on skin color??
|
I've never heard a racist say another race is inferior because of
their skin tone. The racist thinks there are other biological or
cultural differences. For instance if a White racist met a Black person
with vitiligo he wouldn't not apply his racist thinking. Similarly a
Black racist wouldn't not apply his racist thinking to a White person
with a very deep tan or someone like that girl who tried to pass as
Black and I believe was president of a local NAACP.
__________________
We fear men so much, because we fear God so little. One
fear cures another. When man's terror scares you, turn your thoughts to
the wrath of God. — GK Chesterton
|
Aug 17, '17, 12:24 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 36,739
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToeInTheWater
Okay, I don't have an issue with your not
equating racism with prejudice. Though I'd be curious to know if you
personally think Lincoln was a racist or not based on your own
definition.
So, do you think it is okay to have a "prejudice" and act on it? Let's
say in your scenario, the teenager is armed, and he thinks he sees
someone draw a gun from his pocket, and he quickly draws his own gun and
shoots. Let's say that same teenager would NOT have done that if he'd
been in a group of teens of his own race.
Is that action then justifiable?
Or what if a store-owner has a prejudice that black teenagers are more
likely to steal or be lazy. Two teens apply for a summer job, one is
white, one is black. The store-owner hires the white teen. The black
teen files a complaint with EEOC.
And he may say, "I didn't mean to harm the black teen, I was just doing
what's prudent for my business. My own life experience and that of
everyone I know, is that blacks are lazier than whites and more prone to
crime. That's why I didn't hire him. I don't hate him or anything."
Is that action then justifiable?
You may say yes, but I know many others will disagree with you.
|
I can't say Lincoln was or was not a racist. While I understand he
thought blacks inherently inferior, the only adverse action I'm aware
of that he took toward them was intending to send them to Liberia then
doing so. However, he might have thought it would be best for them,
which would be different, then. Objectively, it wasn't. But
subjectively, he might have thought so. There is a difference between
objective and subjective evil.
It might not be evil to act on a sincerely held prejudice, subjectively,
as with the store owner, but it would be objectively evil knowing what
we now know about capabilities of the races. It might also be stupid, as
with the example you posed. And, we do have a moral obligation to obey
the law.
As to the black teenager and the gun, he would probably be stupid not to
draw his own gun and shoot the white guy, though he, like all of us, he
is capable of giving up his own life to avoid another's death . His
prejudice in favor of the black gun-drawer would be foolish. Whether
failure to draw and shoot in either instance might also constitute an
immoral refusal to defend his own life is something it would take too
many unknown facts to answer.
|
Aug 17, '17, 12:26 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: December 7, 2016
Posts: 867
Religion: Protestant Christian
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Nothing will be solved as long as people are more interested in scoring
political/partisan points or saving face with the tragedy. Plenty on
this forum are guilty of this.
No one wants an honest conversation on how to curb white supremacy. No
one wants to understand the process that has led up to this event or why
neo-Nazism is growing except their own (usually wrong) preconceived
ideas. The only thing that people do want is to do, including on this
forum, is to brand all Republicans as racist or defend Donald Trump from
his own incompetence and repeating tired talking points from political
commentators on TV and social media from left to right. As if this
political/partisan game will offer much in terms of understanding the
nature of the alt-right.
__________________
[A]s long as the ‘[W]est’ doesn’t rediscover Christianity, it flails
dangerously about, mistaking strength and wealth for virtue. It puts its
faith in reeking tube and iron shard, in bigger weapons, and in
[‘tougher security'], in consumer goods and in its own luxurious
hedonism - Peter Hitchens
|
Aug 17, '17, 12:30 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 36,739
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATraveller
Nothing will be solved as long as people
are more interested in scoring political/partisan points or saving face
with the tragedy. Plenty on this forum are guilty of this.
No one wants an honest conversation on how to curb white supremacy. The
only thing that people do want is to do, including on this forum, is to
brand all Republicans as racist or defend Donald Trump from his own
incompetence and repeating tired talking points from political
commentators on TV and social media from left to right. As if this
political/partisan game will offer much in terms of understanding the
nature of the alt-right.
|
Okay then. In my opinion, the best way to curb white supremacy is
for law enforcement to infiltrate it and for the remainder of society to
give it the lack of attention and importance it deserves. Giving it all
the attention it's getting is, in my opinion, exactly the wrong thing.
|
Aug 17, '17, 12:38 pm
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: November 22, 2007
Posts: 8,102
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
The danger in police infiltration of extremist groups is that whether
they be White supremacist, Black militant, Radical leftist, Islamist,
Environmental, etc, police have on occasion decided the best way to take
the group down was by encouraging one of the more impressionable
members to do something violent.
|
Aug 17, '17, 1:21 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 36,739
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus L
The danger in police infiltration of
extremist groups is that whether they be White supremacist, Black
militant, Radical leftist, Islamist, Environmental, etc, police have on
occasion decided the best way to take the group down was by encouraging
one of the more impressionable members to do something violent.
|
One can only assume they interdict such actions at the point where
the perp initiates activity toward it, since that is enough to
constitute a crime.
My impression is that white supremacist groups are perhaps the most
infiltrated of all conspiratorial groups in the U.S., and the most
"ratted out". Generally speaking, those kinds of groups are a long way
from being very intelligent or sophisticated, and internal cohesion is
very loose.
One needs to realize too that there are other groups that can be loosely
affiliated with white supremacist groups, as with some of the groups
that are really just anarchists of a primitive sort. But they're usually
pretty infiltrated as well. They might make common cause in some
instances but aren't really loyal to each other.
|
Aug 17, '17, 3:34 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: September 23, 2010
Posts: 2,898
Religion: Thinking About Catholicism...
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner
I can't say Lincoln was or was not a
racist. While I understand he thought blacks inherently inferior, the
only adverse action I'm aware of that he took toward them was intending
to send them to Liberia then doing so. However, he might have thought it
would be best for them, which would be different, then. Objectively, it
wasn't. But subjectively, he might have thought so. There is a
difference between objective and subjective evil.
|
Certainly, if Lincoln wished to send blacks to Liberia because he
hated them and didn't want them in the country, that is different from
sending them there because he thought it was the best for them.
I think the other issue with Lincoln is that while he certainly had
prejudices, he was also capable of changing his views when confronted
with evidence against them. At least, according to Lincoln historian
Eric Foner, quotes on the Snopes site, in their take on a quote from
Lincoln where he makes clear he does not see the races as equal:
http://www.snopes.com/did-lincoln-ra...uality-oppose/
The quote from Lincoln is this, in the context of his debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858:
Quote:
|
I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making
voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, of
having them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I
suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms
of social and political equality, and inasmuch, as they cannot so live,
that while they do remain together, there must be the position of
superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of
the superior position being assigned to the white man.
|
Such quotes are what people often refer to when dismissing Lincoln as just another white racist.
Yet I do think the reality was a tad more nuanced than that, and Mr. Foner agrees:
Quote:
We spoke to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, author of several
books on Lincoln, including The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and
American Slavery.
“There’s no question that: one, before the Civil War, Lincoln hated slavery. He always did,” Foner told us:
Two, he shared many of the prejudices of his society. That was a deeply
racist society both north and south before the Civil War.
"He did insist that black people were entitled to what they call the
natural rights of man — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…. And
also that black people were entitled to what they used to call the
fruits of their own labor."
During the Civil War, Foner says, Lincoln’s views evolved radically as
he was exposed to black people such as Frederick Douglass, who were far
more talented than he had assumed, and as the efforts of freed slaves in
the Union army earned them, in Lincoln’s view, the right to
citizenship.
Just before his death, Lincoln gave a speech in which he mentioned the
possibility of giving black Union soldiers and wealthy black elites the
right to vote, in direct contradiction to his 1858 remarks.
And yet, Foner told us, for a long time Lincoln’s plan for black people
in the United States largely consisted of arranging for them to the
leave the country and set up colonies elsewhere.
Foner also warned against overemphasizing the importance of ethnicity to Lincoln by isolating specific racist remarks he made:
"The fact is, Lincoln said almost nothing about race. He was not that
interested in race…Race was not a major intellectual construct for
Lincoln…And the 1858 speech was purely defensive. That doesn’t excuse
it, but he was being attacked in those debates as believing in negro
equality."
|
|
Aug 17, '17, 6:43 pm
|
|
Forum Master
|
|
Join Date: November 12, 2012
Posts: 15,743
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
There goes the answer to those that stated that the driver acted in self defense
|
Aug 18, '17, 2:22 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: July 19, 2004
Posts: 5,099
Religion: Syro-Malankara Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by exnihilo
That is a nice platitude. But there are
obviously groups of humans with distinct appearances. It's like saying
there are no white cars only cars. Or there are no blonde people only
people. There is no need to ignore our differences in order to get
along.
I've never heard a racist say another race is inferior because of their
skin tone. The racist thinks there are other biological or cultural
differences. For instance if a White racist met a Black person with
vitiligo he wouldn't not apply his racist thinking. Similarly a Black
racist wouldn't not apply his racist thinking to a White person with a
very deep tan or someone like that girl who tried to pass as Black and I
believe was president of a local NAACP.
|
Actually the latter proves that black persons in general did not
judge the woman on her fake hair and tan and actually treated her quite
well. I think most people felt sorry for her, and not particularly angry
for her fakery.
As a person of South East Asian descendant, I can see the flaw in
color/race based thinking since we are a mixed group. I have Indian
relatives lighter than an average European, with similar features, as
well as dark skinned relatives who could pass for African, all within
the same family. The "difference" really is surface. Intelligence and
character are what matter
|
Aug 18, '17, 4:54 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 36,739
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by SyroMalankara
Actually the latter proves that black
persons in general did not judge the woman on her fake hair and tan and
actually treated her quite well. I think most people felt sorry for her,
and not particularly angry for her fakery.
As a person of South East Asian descendant, I can see the flaw in
color/race based thinking since we are a mixed group. I have Indian
relatives lighter than an average European, with similar features, as
well as dark skinned relatives who could pass for African, all within
the same family. The "difference" really is surface. Intelligence and
character are what matter
|
"Race" is a conventional term. I don't think many still believe
there is any "race" other than the "human race". But it can be useful to
make distinctions even so, because there are generally-applicable
traits that ought not to be ignored.
For instance, it would be useful to a doctor to think "sickle cell
anemia" in the presence of an array of symptoms in a black person, but
not for a person of northern European descent. He would want to think in
other directions.
If a black person had recurring gastric problems and the physician
learned that he was inadvertently consuming a product containing
powdered milk or other lactose, it would be of interest in a way that a
northern European with the same symptoms.
It probably is no longer true, but the devastation of American Indian
populations by "white" diseases possibly wasn't so much a matter of
their lack of previous exposure as it was to the fact that their immune
systems were more adapted to combat parasitic diseases than to bacterial
and viral diseases.
Certainly, mistakes can be made. It was once thought that Berger's
Syndrome was a disease of Jews. It is, in fact, mostly caused by the use
of tobacco.
Nevertheless, it probably is more important to caution a very white
person against excessive sun exposure than it would be for a black
person.
South Asian Indians are interesting. Many, if not most, are of the same
"race" as Pashtuns, Persians and Europeans. I realize this isn't always
true, but if you look at the average Indian and just picture his skin,
hair and eyes lighter, he is indistinguishable from a European. By the
same token, if you took the average "white" person and darkened his
skin, hair and eyes, you wouldn't notice him as different on the streets
of Calcutta.
And some Indians, of course, would not look unlike the crowd on a European street without any change in coloration at all.
I'm not sure about lactose tolerance among South Asian Indians. Clearly,
many of them consume milk and milk products as adults. But if you look
at lactose tolerance, it's greater the farther north and west you get in
Europe at least.
Appearances, of course, don't necessarily tell you much about DNA.
Northern Chinese, for example, share more DNA traits with Europeans than
they do with Southern Chinese. But then, if one looks at the Tarim
mummies, one can guess why.
|
Aug 18, '17, 5:09 pm
|
|
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: September 10, 2006
Posts: 36,739
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToeInTheWater
Certainly, if Lincoln wished to send
blacks to Liberia because he hated them and didn't want them in the
country, that is different from sending them there because he thought it
was the best for them.
I think the other issue with Lincoln is that while he certainly had
prejudices, he was also capable of changing his views when confronted
with evidence against them. At least, according to Lincoln historian
Eric Foner, quotes on the Snopes site, in their take on a quote from
Lincoln where he makes clear he does not see the races as equal:
http://www.snopes.com/did-lincoln-ra...uality-oppose/
The quote from Lincoln is this, in the context of his debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858:
Such quotes are what people often refer to when dismissing Lincoln as just another white racist.
Yet I do think the reality was a tad more nuanced than that, and Mr. Foner agrees: |
I'll get blasted for this, of course, but one might say the same
of Nathan Bedford Forrest. He was a slave trader before the Civil War.
He is accused of countenancing the murder of black soldiers at Fort
Pillow, though that doesn't seem definite. He is accused of being the
first leader of the Klan, but a congressional committee in 1871
concluded that he was not only not the leader but he tried to get it to
disband.
He was invited to speak at the black "Pole Bearers Association" a large
black fraternal organization in 1875 and was harshly criticized for it
and for what he said at it by racist former Confederates. When Forrest
died, his funeral was attended by a large number of black mourners.
Again, I realize he is considered the devil incarnate by many people
now. But I don't think we can say he was always an inveterate "racist"
any more than we can say for sure that Lincoln was. Both were men of
their time, and both seem to have changed. How much either changed, we
can't know for sure.
|
Aug 18, '17, 6:53 pm
|
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: July 19, 2004
Posts: 5,099
Religion: Syro-Malankara Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
The latter association with black fraternal orgs suggestion a change in attitude. Which would redeem him in many people's eyes
|
Aug 18, '17, 8:47 pm
|
 |
Forum Elder
|
|
Join Date: August 28, 2012
Posts: 21,626
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner
I'll get blasted for this, of course, but
one might say the same of Nathan Bedford Forrest. He was a slave trader
before the Civil War. He is accused of countenancing the murder of
black soldiers at Fort Pillow, though that doesn't seem definite. He is
accused of being the first leader of the Klan, but a congressional
committee in 1871 concluded that he was not only not the leader but he
tried to get it to disband.
He was invited to speak at the black "Pole Bearers Association" a large
black fraternal organization in 1875 and was harshly criticized for it
and for what he said at it by racist former Confederates. When Forrest
died, his funeral was attended by a large number of black mourners.
Again, I realize he is considered the devil incarnate by many people
now. But I don't think we can say he was always an inveterate "racist"
any more than we can say for sure that Lincoln was. Both were men of
their time, and both seem to have changed. How much either changed, we
can't know for sure.
|
Bedford had a change of heart later in life.
I was watching a historical documentary on the KKK which noted they
weren't formed as a racist group but as a club to meet women. The group
was corrupted with racism later.
I think Lincoln did alright for his time, but I think he had to be
pragmatic to get some things done. Prior to him and the GOP, all the
abolitionists did was burn copies of the Constitution on Friday nights
and annoy slave owners. They had no real power. A lot of freed Blacks
were very supportive of Lincoln and the Republican party in elections
until the Depression when folks of all stripes backed FDR.
__________________
"The left is no longer liberal"-----Dave Rubin
"Social network censorship----SEE HOW FAR THEY GET WITH IT!!!!!" --------from Social Justice the Musical
"...censorship begins with me, but will end with you". --Milo Yiannapolous
Hate speech = free speech #1A #2A
|
Aug 21, '17, 10:57 pm
|
 |
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: February 26, 2007
Posts: 1,361
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
|
|
Re: Some polls on the Charlottesville Situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFerri48
|
First, they went after the offensive Christian religious symbols
displayed in public: Christmas Nativity scenes; U.S. Veterans' monuments
designed with Christian crosses on government property; Latino American
and other public school students wearing rosaries; representations of
Moses' Ten Commandments in state court buildings.
Now its the Confederate Heritage of the South's turn for cultural destruction.
Broadly speaking and in general, many on the Left are for protecting
offensive art even when it offends other people's social, religious, or
political values; but when some on the Left encounter art that offends
their sensibilities, some members of the political Left want to rip
down, censor, or destroy that art.
I would be interested in seeing poll results with regard to the removal
of Christmas Nativity scenes or Moses' Ten Commandments in state court
buildings but I cannot recall having ever seen any.
Who knows what will be next.
__________________
"It's a free country; you can say whatever you want."
--Old American Saying
(U.S. Postal Service stamp-- from 1977 Americana series which extols
freedom of speech and features a Speaker's Stand decorated with an
American Flag shield.)
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment