Posted 4 years ago around lunchtime by oso
Maybe I just miss my Fascist friend as he’s traveling in the motherland, in the heart of the wonderous cactus juice, tequila. But the truth is, I’ve learned a thing or two from Thomas Sowell’s biggest fan. Not about poltics or economics - that’s for me to do the teaching 
- but about the cultural differences between liberals and conservatives.
Right now I’m reading the much talked about issue of Time which declared George Bush person of the year. In it is an article by Joe Klein titled The Bennetton-Ad Presidency which celebrates the diversity within Bush’s cabinet. I think this is a good point and one that doesn’t get brought up nearly enough. I recently read an interview with Tavis Smiley of NPR’s popular Tavis Smiley Show. He explained that he will be leaving NPR, in part, because of the many complaints of listeners who don’t like the way he speaks and laughs (like a normal, young black man). Anyway, one of the questions was if Bush’s cabinet or NPR was more diverse and Smiley says hands down it’s Bush’s cabinet.
So, here is a passage from Klein’s article:
In a way, President Bush is the beneficiary of 40 years of Democratic policy - not just affirmitive action, which helped create a broader, deeper pool of successful nonwhite college graduates, but also the Democratic Party’s historic support for civil rights legislation, the femmenist revolution and the easing of strict immigration policies in the 1960’s, policies long opposed by many Republicans. But the Bush Cabinets have also been very much a reflection of who George W. Bush is and always has been.
Now, if HP were to read this, I can already guarantee you it would infuriate him. Because the premise is that minorities succeed because liberals make it easier for them. I think it’s exactly this condescending attitude which is driving so many minorities to the GOP. Because most minorities proudly work themselves through the system without taking any handouts and then read articles like this which completely discount their incredible accheivments as “benefits of Democratic policy.”
But it also puts minorities against minorities because liberals see conservatives like Hispanic Pundit as turning their backs on their own people; holding everyone to their own high standards to make a point. We need to continue progressive social programs to ensure social/economic mobility and integrate our giant melting pot. But we (and I mean specifically Democrats) need to lose this racist idea that minorities succeed because of our policy.
A couple months ago two local grad students and I headed out to Joshua Tree to do some rock climbing. One went to Brown and the other UCSD and they both now go to one of the best Grad Schools in the world, researching things that most rural Republicans have never even heard of. We are all, of course, liberals. It was a crazy day and snow ended up falling as low as the 215 in Riverside. Obviously, we didn’t get any climbing in, but we figured some eggs and hashbrowns at a local diner would be second best.
If one picture could sum up the reason why George Bush was re-elected to the rest of the world, which still can’t comprehend such a thing, it would be a picture of this diner. Wrangler jeans, big belt buckles, friendly, sassy waitresses in white aprons with big hair. This was the heartland. The diner filled up with skinny, old white men who looked like they were leftovers from the 1849 Gold Rush. Native Americans with silky long black hair shuffled in. And so did big families of Mexican Americans, their overweight kids running to the video games like penguins. But they were all Republicans. Guaranteed.
Then there was us. Three White 20-somethings in fleeces and North Face jackets and stylish beanies. As soon as we opened the door our mouths dropped in awe. “Holy shit, this place is amazing,” I said. We couldn’t get enough of it. But then I realized we were completely trivializing a lifestyle that is everything these people have ever known. They were all polite to us despite out geeky enthusiasm, but I’m sure in their heads they were all thinking, damn college liberals. It was my first ever real awareness that there is in fact some truth to the “liberal elite” stereotype and that in small way it even fit me too.
I felt it again … more so … two weekends ago in Cambridge. There was such a stuffy intellectual arrogance in the crisp cool air, that I was sure I looked like the visiting Republican from the South. I was reminded - as I first experienced in Cape Cod three years ago - that despite our common blueness, the East and West coasts each have our distinct brands of liberalism. I would say that West Coast liberalism is much more egalitarian and populist, but really maybe the only difference is that we wear sandles.
Either way, I have definitely learned a thing or two from HP already. And, though he would never admit it, I think he’s widened his perspective too. In fact, the last time we went out for beers before he took off for Mexico, he admitted that he would probably be much more liberal if he didn’t believe in an absolute morality. That recognition is a good start and if I can convince him to do some more traveling, I think we’ll see some changes in perspective over the years at HispanicPundit.com.
I enjoy Bush’s “diversity”. It demonstrates that Bush does not just play lip-service to the idea of diversity in his cabinet.
I do believe, however, that there is a need for both parties. The democrats and republicans are both needed. It helps with balance. I think it is healthy to a point. I think it becomes dangerous when you go to the extreme.
That’s what I think at this particular point in time.
Savvy?
HP says he is a conservative because he believes in absolute morality? How odd. That’s why I’m a liberal. I believe those of us who are well-off have an absolute moral obligation to help out the less fortunate, and the powerful have a moral obligation to avoid persecuting the weak, as well as—where possible—stopping the less powerful from persecuting the weak.
I believe those of us who are well-off have an absolute moral obligation to help out the less fortunate, and the powerful have a moral obligation to avoid persecuting the weak, as well as—where possible—stopping the less powerful from persecuting the weak.
–Mitch
The unborn could be viewed as those who are “less fortunate” and the “powerful” can be viewed upon as those who have the power to decide for “themselves” and choose their own destinies and the destinies of others. Que si?
Anyway….here we go again, did I open pandora’s box?
DD, I think I’ve said everything I have to say about the abortion issue, here and elsewhere.
My anger with liberalism goes much deeper than what you described above.
Liberals, from what I have seen, view minorities as parents view children, or as a teacher views her/his mentally handicapped student. We are judged at a different (lower) standard than others, and any progress we make isn´t primarily because of our hard work and dedication, but because of the benevolence and good will of our parents, who made it so (read: liberals).
This is primarily why, in my opinion, liberals get so irrate at Alberto Gonzales and all the other minorities that were nominated to high positions in Republican Administrations. They see minority conservatives as minorities that have succeeded without paying respect to their saviors (read: liberals) and all the work they did, because afterall, we all know those minorities wouldn´t have made it without them.
So it´s not so much a general joy that minorities made it that boils my blood, or a recognition that certain laws or legislation helped make it easier. It´s when this view is tied to a ¨It´s all because of us¨ view, and a view that assumes we couldn´t possibly have made it without them. There has been several other groups of people that suffered racism and prejudice in this country, whether it be Catholics, Jews or even the Irish (and don´t give me the bs response that it´s hard to spot one, back than it was pretty easy to see who was Jew, or Irish etc), and all have made it on their own. And I have no reason to believe that us Mexicans, or my black brothers and sisters, couldn´t also make it without the help of the liberal´s sympathy and pitty. I would even take it further, I would be willing to bet that we would have made it better, and faster, without the help of our ´friends´.
For the record, I am not saying that this is all liberals, only a (significant) portion of them. I would also like to point out that my limousine liberal friend, Oso, is certainly not like this. He comes off as very genuine in his view of minorities, and one could easily tell that he has a sincere desire to have us succeed, and more importantly, view´s us on an equal level.
I am somewhat in a rush, and I would like to write more on this, but for now there is one more, fundamental, correction I must make before I leave this internet cafe. Oso wrote,
In fact, the last time we went out for beers before he took off for Mexico, he admitted that he would probably be much more liberal if he didn’t believe in an absolute morality.
Tsk tsk tsk…This is how rumors get started. It should read that I ´would probably be much less conservative if I didn´t believe in an absolute morality´.
Or, that I might have been a liberal if I didn´t believe in an absolute morality. But to write the above, is to imply that I am already somewhat liberal…and believe you me, I am as right wing as they come. If I let stuff like the above slide, I might get my membership to the ´vast right wing conspiracy´ revoked, and I wouldn´t want that to happen. 
Message For Oso: Ay Oso, tu sabias que tu nombre Óso´tambien puede significar ridiculo o pasar una verguenza. Por ejemplo cuando alguien sale de bañar y solo usa la toalla y de un derrepente tocan la puerta y por accidente se te cae en frente de esa persona la toalla. Eso es para ella un oso o tambien tragame tierra porque no hayas como corregir ni que escusa darle. Just an FYI
HP, there is a great deal of diversity of thought within the liberal community as well as within the conservative community. I have no doubt you can find many articles by self-described liberals supporting your view—but they do not represent me, or my beliefs, or the beliefs of anyone I know, or anyond I support.
Likewise, I could dredge up all sorts of bonehead quotes from Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, and the ilk, to describe why I’ll never be a conservative. But those people are fools, and not representative of the best conservative thought.
However, they may well be representative of the thinking of the national Republican party….
Dammit, I really should think before I post—I thought of a better way to say the same thing.
Let’s say I came to you one day and said: “I could never be a conservative, because I’m virtually an atheist. I am a strong believer in separation of church and state, and I think the radical Religious Right is a great enemy to American freedom. I look at people like Pat Buchanan, Bill O’Reilly, and Tom DeLay, who advocate bringing Christian values into government. They are conservatives, and therefore I conclude that I could never be a conservative.”
You would, quite rightly, retort that there are many different kinds of conservatism, and the Religous Right is just one of them.
I have no problem with Walter Williams column, which you linked to, earlier. He makes some good points, but he wrongly attacks liberals, when the people he should be attacking are a more specific target, the leadership of the national Democratic Party. I am, quite possibly, more disgusted by the national Democratic Party than you are; the 2004 election demonstrates to me that they are an organization of idiots. It’s hard to be more incompetent than the Bush Administration, but somehow the Democrats and John Kerry managed to pull it off.
DD, I think I’ve said everything I have to say
about the abortion issue, here and elsewhere.
–Mitch
All right…..es ok.
Hey Mitch,
While I sympathize with your response, I still think you are in denial with how deep this is in the Democratic party and liberalism in particular.
Can you honestly tell me that responses like this to minorities in Republican Administrations are not part and parcel of the Democratic party, and liberals in particular? I´ve been browsing liberal blogs and websites for some time now, and it would not be difficult to multiply the examples of liberals saying the exact same thing as TCF, who is, btw, a memeber of the PBA. We exchanged words over the incident, and not one liberal (aside from Oso) would say that what he did was wrong. In fact, the opposite is true, there were liberals who even came out in defense of what TCF said.
Don´t let this one incident give you the impression that this is an isolated incident. I would go even further, and say this is a logical deduction of liberal policies. I remember reading a philosopher who said that one is a product of the decisions he makes. Well, I would take that even further, and say a party is a product of the policies it champions. And it has always been liberals, not conservatives, who emphasize race specific solutions, as opposed to cultural specific solutions.
Just to give one example of a policy that is largely shared by most liberals, lets talk about affirmative action. Affirmative action has classically been tied to race as opposed to cultural upbrining. If you were a black student who had a lawyer as a father, and a doctor as a mother, you would traditionally qualify for affirmative action over say, a white kid who grew up in Compton (purely fictional scenario, as there are no white kids in Compton) with divorced parents. Maybe, and I stress maybe, this was necessary early in the civil rights fight, but this type of affirmative action is now closer to handicap points than anything else. And a policy built like that, implies that minorities can not compete with white students not because of their cultural upbringing, but solely because of their race. I am of the belief that it is growing up in poverty that makes the playing field unequal, not because I am Mexican, or Black, yet liberals tie it to race.
So I believe that this is a natural deduction of what liberals, and yes a majority of them, already believe, it´s just that some have logically followed their beliefs to its natural end, where others have not.
You may be right, HP.
I’ve been thinking over the last few days—not for the first time—that labels like “liberal” and “conservative” obscure more than they hide.
What do you, Anne Coulter and Pat Buchanan have in common? And yet you’re all conservatives.
And I’m thorougly disgusted with both the Democrats and Republican parties at this point.
Whoops, I should have said “obscure more than they reveal.”
Proofreading. I’ve heard of it.
And I don’t think it’s at all bigoted to suggest that Condi Rice and Colin Powell were appointed to their current positions based on race.
I think it’s wrong, mind you, but I don’t think it’s bigoted. I don’t know much about Rice’s background. Sure, there’s no evidence to suggest she’s competent to be Secretary of State, but then again there’s no evidence to suggest that George W. Bush are fit to hold their offices, and they’re white males.
And Colin Powell before her had an excellent record as commander of the allied forces during the first Iraq war. He got to be secretary of state on his accomplishments alone.
I read a wonderful, cynical political column years ago by a black journalist. I think it might have been William Rasberry. The column came out right after O.J. Simpson was acquited.
The column started out making the assertion that the real breakthrough for blacks wasn’t when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in professional baseball. The real breakthrough was years later, near the end of Robinson’s career. Robinson was tagged out in a late World Series game. And yet the umpire called Robinson as safe.
The columnist’s point: That moment proved that a popular black player, just like a popular white player, could now benefit from a bad call by an umpire.
Likewise (said the columnist) the O.J. Simpson verdict proved that, now, a wealthy black murderer could buy an acquital, just alike a wealthy white murderer.
I told you the column was cynical.
And another typo: I meant to say that there’s no evidence that either Bush or Rummy are competent to hold their positions….
Hey Mitch,
Only got a few minutes…The blog I linked to did much more than call into question Condi Rice, or a specific minorities qualifications (Which I agree is not bigoted). TCF starts his blog off with this,
Notice the emphasis, this is much more than a specific candidate. This is a wide generalization encompassing all ´minority race Republican´s´. He only used Alberto Gonzales and Condi Rice as examples of this wide generalization. It was his wide generalization I was using as an example here…not him calling into question a specific candidates qualifications.
With that said, I am not basing my views on this one isolated case. It is a fact that liberals in general, follow race specific solutions, and hold minorities at a (lower) standard than whites. It is also a fact that they largely credit their efforts with minority success.
And conservatives, in general, think that racism and bigotry are solved problems, and the poor are where they are because they deserve to be. They made “bad choices.”
From my perspective as a liberal, I respond: Yeah, they sure did make bad choices. They chose the wrong parents.
Mainline liberal thinking at least acknowledges there’s a problem. The conservative party line is that the problem largely doesn’t exist, if it does exist, it’s the liberal’s fault, and the free market will solve everything.
The free market did a lousy job of solving the problems of poverty and bigotry until the New Deal—if we roll back the provisions of the New Deal and the following 70 years of history, why should we think society would be any more equitable this time around than it was before?
I told y’all HP wouldn’t admit it. Just kidding. Much food for thought here, not enough minutes in the day.
I am spending too much time in this internet cafe…I´ll be brief.
That is not true at all. The differences are more in emphasis than anything else.
I realize that the New Deal, and its supposed success, is the new haven for pro-government types who had their hopes crushed with the fall of communism and socialism. But it is not the success they think it to be. In fact, several economists have come out against the policies of FDR…
For more info on this, read,
FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression
by JIM POWELL
In other words, FDR and his policies, along with those of LBJ made things worse for the poor, not better.
Here’s why I’ll never be a conservative. HP, you may not agree with the prosecutor in this decision, but he plays for your team.
A Difficult Pregnancy
I see nothing particularly conservative or liberal, for that matter, in that post. Your reasons for being liberal are based on a false analysis of what it means to be conservative…
But since were swinging around wide generalizations, let me respond with the same, only that my response will be much more accurate in representing the liberal side. This is part of the reason why I can´t be liberal, a women talks about how she felt after she had an abortion,
Or how about this one, just sent in to abortion testimonials on the 16th of this month,
Oh, and the environment abortion creates.
Oh, and I haven´t even started on the economic problems liberals create…
Here’s why I’ll never be a conservative. HP, you may not agree with the prosecutor in this decision, but he plays for your team.
–Mitch
Mitch, you can’t be a conservative because of the judge’s decision? Or because of the prosecutor’s role?
I read the link, and I’m trying to figure you out.
Am I missing something? I’m not trying to be a smartass here, I am just trying to figure your comments.
No time to respond to all the good points and questions raised here.
I’m now kind of suspicious of the article. The beginning of the article–especially the first paragraph—are not supported by the facts as they are laid out in the rest of the article.
It appears, if you read all the way to the end, that the judge and prosecutor were not trying to prevent the woman from getting a divorce. Rather, they were following a law that required a 90-day waiting period before granting a woman’s divorce request, if the woman is pregnant, to give her husband a chance to contest it.
I ran the article by a friend in another discussion group—like HP, he’s a conservative, and my friend is a lawyer, too. He responded: “I think it is a fair example of a species of conservative judicial temperament, the kind that ignores the consequences of dated legal doctrines — and is aggressively devoted to upholding precendent, no matter what. ‘Let justice be done even if the heavens fall.’”
“I’ve little patience for this sort of thing. Pragmatic jurisprudence is about knowing when the law is being an ass and not being afraid to junk old law. But I am at my least conservative when it comes to jurisprudence.”
In my observation, the central tenet of American conservatism is the desire to return America to a Golden Age that existed in some time before liberals came and mucked things up.
The characterstics of this Golden Age, in the mind of its believers:
– Women were subservient to men.
– Teen-agers were chaste, and—when they weren’t—they were held in opprobrium, which was good for the commonweal, because it kept the majority of teens in line.
– People got by on their own merit and hard work. The poor were that way because they didn’t work hard enough. They deserved it.
– And, most importantly, American was a Christian nation that respected Christian values.
None of these may be your beliefs, but they’re the beliefs of our President, his supporters, and Congressional leadership.
Of course, this Golden Age never existed. If you look at the time before liberalism gained power—which I’d place at when FDR gained office–you see an era when WASP men were kings, women were beaten and didn’t have the vote, and the rich were free to abuse the poor with little constraint.
The Golden Age of America was the latter half of the 20th Century, a time when strong government and a strong private sector were occasionally partners, and occasionally balanced each other. And liberals had a lot to do with creating that state.
HP: The stories of those two women who regret their abortions is heartbreaking—and there’s a special circle of Hell reserved for family members and boyfriends who intimidate a 17-year-old girl into having an abortion.
Pro-choice isn’t a euphemism for me. Forced abortion is plain wrong.
Still, your anecdotes do not serve as arguments to ban abortion because it is wrong. Rather, it serves as an argument to ban abortion because women don’t know what was good for them. Conservatives of the Clinton era had a phrase to describe that kind of thinking: “The nanny state.” And that’s one of the chief reasons that I’ll never be a conservative.
I grew up with conservatives warning about the Nanny State created by liberals, and then, when the conservatives finally reach a point where they control two out of three branches of federal government—and are gaining control of the third—what do the conservatives do? Why, they want to regulate my sexual behavior, they want to tell me who I can marry. They hire people to search me and pat me down when I wish to travel across geographical distances. They want to keep a database that contains the credit history, criminal record, and other background information about any American that flies on an airline. They want to be able to demand to know what books I read and what videos I watch, and they want to forbid librarians from letting me know that they’ve inquired. They want to suspend the right to trial by jury and the right to counsel. If I had children, they’d be filling my children’s heads with lies about evolution and how to avoid getting pregnant.
And, of course, conservatives have been beating up liberals for decades about fiscal responsibility, but now that the conservatives have complete control of the federal pursestrings, they’ve run up a deficit of hundreds of millions of dollars, while cutting taxes.
Of course, the punchline of this story is that the leaders of this country really aren’t conservatives. They’re radicals, determined to impose their national agenda for drastic change on the country. I’d gladly have voted for a real conservative for president in the 2004 election.
Hmmm. We have a waiting period here in Kansas. I think it is somewhat of a good thing. When people file for divorce…the journal entry decree of divorce usually requires a waiting period.
However, here in this state, one can get a doctor’s note/letter to expedite the divorce process. In some cases, if one has a doctor’s note/letter telling the judge that his/her patient is suffering mental stress……then the judge will usually sign the divorce documents.
I wonder if this gal could have done the same thing.
Let me tell ya…..there are some stupid judges/lawyers out there. Believe me, I know.
But I have to remember that they are human and make mistakes.
I suppose I just don’t understand why the lady did not go through with the divorce, you know? Also, most states have a “protection from abuse” type of assistance. This case seemed to happen recently enough that I wonder why this gal didn’t file a “protection from abuse” type of case against this man.
I also wonder about the woman’s lawyer……
Geez’ I’m wondering to much. Happy New Year everyone!
I think it´s fair to say that both liberals and conservatives try to control some part of your life. Liberals will try to control how to spend your money, based on their morality, conservatives will try to control your behavior, based on what their morality is. Both claim a higher moral to do what they think is right.
Conservatives are trying to control how I spend my money far more than the liberals are. Or, rather, the people running the U.S. today are doing so, and they call themselves conservatives.
More than that, by cutting taxes while running up massive deficits, they’re controlling how my nieces and nephew (aged 15 years, 3 years, and 18-month-old twins) will spend their money, and how their children will spend it too.
HP, whenever we’ve discussed issues, you’ve always expressed an anti perspective. Anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-liberal. I know pretty much what you’re against. But what are you in favor of? What are some of the social changes you’d like to see, the changes in government policy? Do you support the Bush administration, or oppose it? Are you in favor of the war in Iraq, or against it?
Another observation: You state that liberals are patronizing minorities, treating them as children, when liberals say that minorities owe their advances to liberals.
But your statement is patronizing in its own way, because it neglects the fact that many of those liberals are, themselves, minorities. What individual has the most responsibility for the advancement of blacks since the 1960s? Martin Luther King.
You state that Bill Clinton, in particular, patronized black people in the manner in which he addressed them. And yet Clinton got strong support from blacks, both in the overall population and from the leadership; I think it was Maya Angelou who pronounced Clinton the first black president. I trust that blacks know their own self-interest, and know who’s patronizing them and shucking and jiving them—to suggest that we know better than they do what’s good for them is, well, patronizing.
Liberal philosophy works best when enlightened members of the majority, minorities and the poor work together and advance themselves. And oppression works best when minority groups turn on each other.
You state that Bill Clinton, in particular, patronized black people in the manner in which he addressed them. And yet Clinton got strong support from blacks……
-Mitch
The number one reason that the minority population supports the democratic party is owed to ‘affirmative action’.
I believe there is a shift taking place.
Affirmative Action was necessary in order for diversity to take place, in my humble opinion. I have to be honest, a good thing that Kennedy did in years past, was helping out MLK when he was in jail.
Hey Mitch,
I wouldn’t classify MLK in the liberal camp. For one, he was strongly religious, and argued for equality through the government on religious principles, something that is more alligned with my camp, than yours. Secondly, he was more merit based than racial based, something again, alligned more with my camp than yours. In fact, I don’t see one thing he taught that a conservative wouldn’t agree with, but I can give you several things he taught that a liberal would disagree with.
I missed this earlier, because I was in a rush, but you had said in response to my abortion testimonials above,
Your response doesn’t cut it Mitch, you fail to see the logical connection. What the mother did, in this situation, was consistent with liberal principles. Remember, the mother did not force her daughter to have the abortion, she merely pressured her, not in an unusual way either. Mothers have a right, indeed some would say an obligation, to use the power they have, without forcing, to have their children do what’s right. If abortion is what liberals claim it is, nothing more than an operation like having your tonsils removed, and if the mother felt that that responsibility was to strong for her child, than what did she do wrong here?
Nothing, that is why in liberal philosophy, there is nothing one can say to comfort her pain. Her pain only exists in my way of looking at the world…not in yours. The fact that you see it as I do, only testifies to the fact that you have not completely reconciled your abortion views with your moral instincts.
As for my particular views, I mentioned them in my introductory post on this blog…I will cut and paste the key paragraph,
I don’t have time for a lengthy post.
Saying “I’m in favor of conservatism because I’m a capitalist” is like saying “I’m in favor of conservatism because I like cheese.” Liberals are capitalists too. Hell, I’m quite happy working for a multibillion-dollar multinational corporation.
If you’re going to define “liberals” as “people who are not religious,” then you are rewriting history to suit your preconceptions. It is, quite simply, false.
There is a long history of marrying religion and liberalism. You might want to Father Google Daniel Berrigan, for instance, and Dorothy Day and the Catholic worker movement.
John Kerry is a mass-attending Catholic who carried a rosary with him on the campaign trail.
The percepton that liberalism is hostile to religion is lies spread by George W. Bush the Fox News Channel, and their ilk.
As far as capitalism goes, I should have been more specific. Strictly speaking, Republicans are not Capitalists either. What I meant by that statement is that I tend to support the party that supports Capitalists principles the closest. And I see Republicans doing this much more than Democrats. Republicans tend to be more in favor of competition instead of government, pro-free trade, more merit based, and more Laissez Faire. I would probably vote Libertarian, if it weren’t for their abortion views.
As far as anti-Christian goes, it is this type of anti-Christianity I dislike, and it is usually liberals behind it. You may say they are extreme liberals, or a small percentage of liberals, but I do see that side more at home in the liberal philosophy than the conservative one.
Btw, I think we have completely drifted from the original message of this particular blog, so I will let you have the last word, and let the current topic die.
HP - Do some Googling on Walter E. Williams’s claims; they simply didn’t happen. He’s lying, or he’s repeating lies he’s been fed by others:
- The public schoolteacher suing the school district wasn’t just distributing the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence; he was proseletyzing for his religion.
- The Founding Fathers were explicitly not Christian, most of them rejected religion. Thomas Jefferson produced an issue of the Bible with all references to God and the Divinity deleted. Most of them believed in Divine Providence, a sort of non-anthropomorphic force that governs human affairs and the universe. Sometimes you’ll hear New Agers today talking about “the Universe” wanting something, or the Universe seeing fit to do something.
- Kandice Smith was not disciplined for wearing a crucifix necklace because it was religious. She was disciplined because her school prohibits the wearing of jewelry outside of clothing. (Read.)
- I could find no reference to one or two of the other instances Williams references.
If he gets his facts that wrong on the instances I was able to find, then I’m not particularly trusting of the rest of his conclusions.
And, as Daily Kos reports, there’s a long history of Americans claiming that Christmas and Christianity are under attack as a pretense for anti-Semitism.
So your citing of that Williams article doesn’t make me want to rush out and embrace the Republican party. I find it rather scary, as a matter of fact. I don’t think you’re anti-Semitic, but it does appear that you are being duped by anti-Semites.
[...] erent in liberalism. I believe this is more his liberalism than Mitch Wagner (an otherwise very civil guy) coming through. This belief is soo deep in liberalism that the l [...]