The recent story of controversy about a speaking appearance by Rev. Ken Hutcherson is both bizarre and revealing.
The upset is about Hutcherson's views on homosexuality and related issues, even though the talk itself was about "growing up as an African American amid racial prejudice." It seems liberal objectors to Hutcherson's presence couldn't stand the fact he spoke about any valid topic based on their point of disagreement on issues not covered at the assembly in question.
Has our society really reached the point where it is simply intolerable to hear from speakers on topic A when we might strongly disagree with them about topic B? Is this the free and open society promoting discourse and understanding that liberals claim to seek?
Consider that in the modern public education system it takes some real effort for a teacher to receive a formal "letter of discipline" as the two teachers who vocally objected to Hutherson's mere presence at the assembly managed to accomplish. It's absolutely disheartening that teachers of all people were the ones objecting to hearing an individual speak to a topic to which that person has unique insight, simply because they object to the speaker's view on separate topics.
Such a mindset is troubling and clearly has an impact. Witness the testimony of one student aggrieved by Hutcherson's presence:
Mount Si junior Alex Olson tearfully said she was a member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and that Hutcherson's appearance and other incidents made her "feel like a complete and utter joke."
Personal collapse at the mere appearance of a speaker with a divergent viewpoint should not be how we raise children to conduct themselves in this world as adults.
Sad.
UPDATE: Commenter AD makes an exceedingly fair point, that Hutcherson's own brash and confrontational behavior in expressing his views has not always served to aid his cause. He is a complicated figure whose own arguable flaws muddy the waters of this debate a bit. That said, the reactions to his presence, particularly the way in which the objections were expressed at the event, remains appalling.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 10, 2008 02:48 PM | Email ThisMount Si junior Alex Olson tearfully said she was a member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and that Hutcherson's appearance and other incidents made her "feel like a complete and utter joke."
So this Alex Olson allows her mood to be controlled by those around her. Not a good sign for her ability to cope with others througout the rest of her life. Typical. She's been coddled by the pro-Democrat, pro-Union, self-esteen, victim, education establishment her whole life. So, now, she's internalized that to the point that the mere presence of someone she disagrees with, is enough to cause her to melt down and reject her self esteem completely.
And from what she's learned, if and when she makes mistakes in life, she'll automatically blame them on everyone but herself. Just like a Democrat.
Way to go WEA. A proud example of public education that you've turned out.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 10, 2008 03:07 PMHere is a good synopsis on the subject:
Discipline Problems, Unruly Behavior Seriously Threatening Student Achievement
(Teaching Interrupted)
May 11, 2004
Michael Hamill Remaley or Shaheen Hasan at 212-686-6610, ext. 13
"A growing "culture of challenge and second guessing," including the fear of lawsuits, is undermining classroom order, hindering learning and driving teachers out of the classroom.
New York City - Discipline and behavior problems in America's public schools are serious, pervasive and are compromising student learning. They are also driving a substantial number of teachers out of the profession. These are some key findings from a new national study of teachers and parents which found that while only a handful of trouble makers cause most disciplinary problems, "the tyranny of the few" leads to a distracting and disrespectful atmosphere. Teachers in particular complain about the growing willingness of some students and parents to challenge teacher judgment and threaten legal action.
According to a new report by the nonpartisan, nonprofit opinion research organization Public Agenda, teachers too often must operate "in a culture of challenge and second guessing" that is affecting their ability to teach and maintain order.
Nearly 8 in 10 teachers (78%) said students are quick to remind them that they have rights or that their parents can sue.
Nearly half of teachers surveyed (49%) reported they have been accused of unfairly disciplining a student.
More than half of teachers (55%) said that districts backing down from assertive parents causes discipline problems in the nation's schools.
The study, Teaching Interrupted: Do Discipline Policies in Today's Public Schools Foster the Common Good?, was prepared for Common Good, a bipartisan legal reform coalition dedicated to restoring common sense to American law.
Proposed solutions selected by teachers and parents include stricter enforcement of existing rules of conduct, alternative schools to help chronically disruptive students and limiting parents' ability to sue schools over disciplinary decisions.
"Rowdiness, disrespect, bullying, talking out, lateness and loutishness - these misbehaviors are poisoning the learning atmosphere of our public schools," said Public Agenda President Ruth A. Wooden. "At a time when the achievement stakes for students have never been higher, the fact is that in school after school, a minority of students who routinely challenge legitimate school rules and authority are preventing the majority of students from learning and teachers from teaching."
"The present legal environment undermines order in schools by enabling students and parents to threaten a lawsuit over virtually anything," said Philip K. Howard, Chair of Common Good. "The legal system must strike a better balance between the claimed rights of individuals and the legitimate interests of society as a whole."
Teachers Think of Leaving
Virtually all teachers (97%) said good discipline and behavior are prerequisite for a successful school. And virtually all (93%) said it is the public schools' job to teach kids to follow the rules so they are ready to join society. Yet nearly 8 in 10 teachers said their school has students who should be removed and sent to alternative schools. In what the report terms a "perhaps the harshest testimonial" to the problem, 52% of the teachers surveyed reported their school has an armed police officer on school grounds.
More than 1 in 3 teachers said colleagues in their school had left because student discipline was such a challenge, and the same number personally considered leaving. Many complained about being more in the "crowd control" business than in teaching. "The gum chewing... the yawning aloud or putting their feet up on the desk...like they didn't know that was inappropriate," said one New Jersey teacher.
More than half of teachers said that behavior problems often stem from teachers who are soft on discipline because they can't count on parents or their schools to support them. And 85% believe new teachers are particularly unprepared to deal with behavior problems.
Taking Parents to Task
Parents, too, agreed (78%) that schools need good discipline and behavior. But 82% of teachers and 74% of parents surveyed felt that parents' failure to teach their children discipline ranked as one of the biggest causes of school behavior problems.
But parents are worried too, with 20% of parents reporting that they have considered moving their child to another school or have done so already because discipline and behavior was such a problem...."
http://www.publicagenda.org/press/press_release_detail.cfm?list=58
I blame the teacher(s) who could have used this for a true teaching moment. I understand that one teacher is the advisor for the Gay/Lesbian group. Ever think to prepare the students in the group to invite Rev. Hutcherson to a debate and then have the students debate him? What about requesting another assembly about how laws may affect those who are gay/transgenered and inviting BOTH sides? So many young teachers have been indoctrinated.
Here is some info about what has been going on with the NEA:
NEA Conventioneers Promote Gay AgendaFor the past dozen years, NEA resolutions have each year adopted more and more of the gay rights agenda. Whereas, gay rights goals such as same-sex marriage ...
www.eagleforum.org/educate/2006/aug06/promote-gay-agenda.html
Intercepts: Alteration to NEA Gay Marriage Resolution in WorksThe proposed amendment to NEA Resolution B-8, which would place the union in support of gay marriage and adoption, is undergoing an amendment of its own, ...
www.eiaonline.com/2006/06/alteration-to-nea-gay-marriage.html
News from Agape PressCalifornia teacher Jeralee Smith, past chairman of the NEA Ex-Gay Educators Caucus, ... 2006 AgapePress all rights reserved. email this page to a friend ...
headlines.agapepress.org/archive/7/62006c.asp
Baptist Press - Educators present evidence refuting
claims ...Jul 12, 2006 ... Conservatives within the NEA opposed the adopted language because it appears to endorse "gay marriage," civil unions and domestic ...
www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23616
US National Education Association to Endorse Same-Sex 'Marriage'Jul 11, 2006 ... The Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification issued a report stating, "that the NEA advocate for the inclusion of gay, ...
www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06071102.html
NEA: NEA Today: Rights -- January 2003A new NEA booklet, "Know Your Rights: Legal Protection for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Education Employees," summarizes recent legal ...
www.nea.org/neatoday/0301/rights.html
NEA: NEA Today: Rights Watch - Latest Supreme Court Rulings Raise ...Church-state and gay rights decisions will impact local districts. ... In response to the Dale decision, delegates to this summer's NEA Representative ...
www.nea.org/neatoday/0009/rights.html
†Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam†: NEA Removes Endorsement of Gay "Marriage "The National Education Association (NEA) has pulled a resolution in support of gay marriage after it was highlighted by a pro-family group. ...
slatts.blogspot.com/2006/06/nea-removes-endorsement-of-gay.html
I think family values folks are fighting an entrenched education institution.
In their backrooms, they have already decided on Hillary, and assume that Obama will gladly accept the Vp nomination. They call this their "Dream Ticket".
Unfortunately, most non delagate type democrats prefer Obama be nominated as their presidential nominee.
So watch how the Clintonites turn the heat up and push the concept of the "Dream Ticket" with Hillary on top, just to lower expectations of Obama and assign him the lower VP position.
I hope he keeps the fight alive, and gets the nod for his party's nomination to the Highest office in this land.
The fur is flying and the backroom deals are being made.
They don't want a brokered convention.
Posted by: GS on February 10, 2008 03:10 PMSo in this situation the conflict is: intellectually fascist PC-police left-wingers vs. the shamelessly egotistical bigot. :(
Posted by: AD on February 10, 2008 03:12 PMI'd be willing to give him a fair hearing if he, like Hutcherson, had some experience that made his view pertinent (and didn't speak to the more controversial issue). That said, I hardly think the scenario you describe is even remotely possible.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 10, 2008 03:12 PMAs a result you get a Key Arena overflowing with brainwashed young robots listening to Obama's empty promise to "change" America.
It was interesting talking to other conservatives yesterday at the caucus. We all shared tales of how unpleasant it can be to be a Republican in liberal Seattle. People told tales of how they have learned to avoid political discussion at work or at social events. Some reported angry comments being directed at them by Democrats on their way to their Caucus at a neighboring building.
I think all conservatives should think deeply about the consequences of the coming election before throwing away their votes in protest.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2008 03:19 PMAs many know I have been waging a pretty much one woman campaign against Ron Paul and his racist associates. Now, if I am invited to a place where he is speaking. I would give him the courtesy of listening to his remarks. Should there be question period, I would grill him. Still, the opertative concepts are:
a. There is always time for courtesty
b. There will always be someone you disagree with and one can disagree without being disagreeble.
Now, probably the reason that most posters are at this site instead of prison is they had caretakers who didn't think school children had rights. You pretty much did what you were told. I believe the line was as long as you are in my house. What we are raising is a generation of kids with no concept of authority of any type. In order to live in a civil society or hold a job, some types of authority must be recognized. This little incident is an example of why parents are leaving public schools in droves.
Posted by: WVH on February 10, 2008 03:24 PMWas there anything in the evidence you provided that could be tied to conservatism?
No.
To paraphrase Rush; liberalism is a failure every time it's tried.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2008 03:31 PMYou're right, it's not possible in today's day and age. But that does not mean that it's not similar to the situation with Hutcherson. Hutcherson views homosexuals the same way that white supremacists view minorities. He believes that a characteristic that they were born with renders them inferior. The difference lies in society at large and how much more accepting we are of bigotry against homosexuals as opposed to bigotry against racial minorities. Having a bigot like Hutcherson speak at a high school (even about a topic unrelated to the bigotry at question) is somehow acceptable even though a white supremacist would never be allowed to do the same.
Posted by: thehim on February 10, 2008 03:33 PMThere are conservatives with terrible manners. Check the archives here, including your posts.
The source of all evil is simply not another who may disagree with you.
There's certainly value for children to learn to respect authority, but there's also a danger in never learning to question it. Authority figures can be both good and bad and skepticism is often essential to keep yourself from being swindled in life. People on both the left and the right can fall victim to blindly believing what their leaders tell them.
Posted by: thehim on February 10, 2008 03:41 PMThe Christian Identity movement uses a warped interpretation of Scripture to say those who are not Caucasian are inferior. This is a limited view of the Scripture. Race is not the same as sexual orientation, although many who campaign for gay rights desparately want that link. Race is an immutable characteristic, despite Michael Jackson's attempts, there is no one that has ever changed their race. There are claims that those who had chosen a homosexual lifestyle have changed and vice versa. That is a choice.
I understand that a gay group will be meeting with the new Morman leader. Good Luck. His mind, like Pope Benedict's won't change on this issue, because conservative sects find authority in Scripture that say the act of homosexuality is wrong, NOT THE PERSON. There are more liberal sects like the Anglicans that take a different approach.
I swear, that is a choice. A better analogy would be to invite a speaker who says that people who swear are lamebrained idiots who show a lack of education and class.
In terms of arguing Scripture with conservative demoninations, it will simply be a case of we will have to agree to disagree.
Posted by: WVH on February 10, 2008 03:49 PMSo then, I can assume that since religion is basically a choice that those who consider Jews inferior aren't as bad as those who consider blacks inferior? Even ignoring the fact that your belief that homosexuality is a choice is dead wrong (just ask a gay person, they'll tell you it's not a choice, just as I never had to choose to be straight, I was just born that way), discriminating against people due to some of their "choices" can still be a sign of unacceptable bigotry.
Posted by: thehim on February 10, 2008 03:56 PM"I guess I should put my point another way, WVH. Is the lack of discipline in schools you cite a result of conservative policies, or liberal ones?"
a. That is one reason
b. Other reasons are the movement away from neighborhood schools.
c. Brown v. Board of Education dealt with not only the issue of racial segregation, but the fact that segregated schools received inferior resources. Probably what will happen after everyone who can has fled public school, including those of color who are able is that we will have segregated schools. We are now left with the issue of how to give the children who are left a quality education with adequate resources. A segregated school does not necesarily equal an inferior school. What numerous educators have demonstrated is given the proper emphasis on discipline and the basics, kids can emerge from these schools and compete for college and vocational training slots.
The next few years in many urban areas will be fairly difficult as educators recognize that just as the "Great Society" has failed, so have many education policies.
Posted by: WVH on February 10, 2008 04:02 PMThe academic performance of our children is our responsibility, pure and simple. If your child isn't doing well you better be in the classroom, meeting with the teacher, or looking for a better place for your child.
Blaming others, as Bill C. seems to be wont to do, is why so many of our kids are failing.
I witnessed it first hand from grade school to high school. The kids that were doing well had parents involved in their education - the AP classes on parent night were full. The general education classes were not.
You want your child to be educated - it is no one's fault but your own if they're not.
Posted by: BA on February 10, 2008 04:12 PMTo me, there is a difference between a white supremacist whose views are based on nothing but ignorant bigotry (which evolved from ancient and scientifically ignorant notions of race), or perhaps the preservation of political power (real or not), and a religious man who believes that homosexuality is sinful in the eyes of God.
The white supremacist displays such ignorance and malevolence that one can justifiably ignore anything else they may have to say, and justifiably prevent their opinions from being heard by impressionable school children. But a devout Christian may be well educated and may have valuable things to say to schoolchildren on topics unrelated to homosexuality. There is no justification for censoring such a man, in my opinion, so long as he does not preach in the school. Since Ken Hutcherson's opinions on homosexuality are purely based on his religious beliefs, to speak on that topic would be preaching.
Personally, thehim, I couldn't disagree more with Ken Hutcherson's position on gays and lesbians, but, as the saying goes, I'd fight for his first amendment rights, and his freedom in general, just as hard as I'd fight for yours.
Posted by: srogers on February 10, 2008 04:14 PM1. Religion in most of the western world is a choice, you can either chose or not choose. In many other parts of the world, the choice can make one an apostate, punishable by death.
2. I can only speak for my religion, which is Christianity and then of a particular sect of that religion. People who consider anyone inferior are equally wrong as all are children of God, therefore it is not up to me to determine the worth of any individual. So, your comparison in my faith is in error.
3. You said:
" I was just born that way), discriminating against people due to some of their "choices" can still be a sign of unacceptable bigotry."
I have read a bit, but I am not a pyschologist or pyschiatrist. Are you? I honestly don't know if people are born with a disposition toward homosexuality. There are studies and people have claimed that they have changed their orientation. Do you dispute those individual's claims?
Now, what do you mean by unacceptable bigotry. First, a religious leader like Pope Benedict saying that in his reading of the Scripture, homosexuality is a sin, makes him a bigot. What do you plan to do, silence him?
Further, if one makes a case that the strongest societies are based upon traditional values, does that make one a bigot. All you are saying is you don't agree with me on my vision for society, just as I don't agree with your vision. By the way, are you an anti-religious bigot?
"Blaming others, as Bill C. seems to be wont to do, is why so many of our kids are failing."
There is a lack of discipline in schools, BA, because liberals who run them do not allow discipline. In my day if I acted up in class I got a swat on my butt with a clipboard. A teacher would lose their job and end up in court now.
As for parents. What parents? Liberals have promoted single parenthood for years. As a result 70% of African American children live in single parent families. Kids come home to empty houses every day.
Again, liberalism has consequences. This mess didn't just happen by accident.
I guess I missed the victimization and blame that you lay on so heavy.
I also missed the black and white, and unhappy world, you live in.
Or are you living in some kind of denial filled dream world?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2008 04:46 PMThe late Senator Patrick Monihan was also a sociologist and he studied the Black family for over 50 years. There is plenty of research on the failure of the "Great Society" programs, most notable is the removal of the man from the house and the possibility of family creation without two parents. If one takes Harlem in the 50s, the majority of Black kids were growing up in two parent homes. Albeit, these homes were poor and the society was segregated, but there were strong family units that passed on a set of values which allowed the family to survive and set the basis for many families to move into the middle class in the 60s and 70s. Black people seem to be the canaries in this society. In the 70s and 80s when there began to be a spike in births to single Black women, no one said much. Now, this trend has spread to the larger society and the effect on children has been devastating. How many times have you read in the papers about a child(ren) being harmed by the boyfriend/girlfriend of the child's custodian?
Some people are simgle parents because of death or a divorce that they didn't want. Outside of Madonna or someone like that, in most cases the single parenthood of, usually the mother, dooms both the child and mother to a life of poverty, serial relationships, and diminshed life chances. We hear about the one or two who overcome odds, but the thousands that don't are out there. This is what an urban school district deals with.
You may not want to deal with the failure of "Great Society" programs, but Black people have been the largest experiement of what happens to families when the basic structure is destroyed.
Posted by: WVH on February 10, 2008 04:55 PMAs WVH points out - the trend toward one-parent families is pervasive now and not limited to one particular racial group - do we think this is still simply the result of the "great society" program or is there much more going on?
Why, given an opportunity to create a family without a father present, with obvious economic hardship the likely result, is that choice so desirable to so many?
Posted by: BA on February 10, 2008 05:03 PMThehim is correct: we do make value judgements on who can appear before a captive, impressionable audience, which, in loco parentis, we have the responsibility to do. A bigot who spoke about dark-skinned persons the same way Hutcherson denigrates homosexuals would not receive an invitation to speak at a school, even if he accepted absolute restrictions on the content of his speech.
"...Hutcherson's own brash and confrontational behavior in expressing his views has not always served to aid his cause. He is a complicated figure whose own arguable flaws muddy the waters of this debate a bit."
No, the good Rev. Hutcherson is not a complicated person at all; he's just a loudmouthed bigot, hatefully intolerant of anyone he does not like. Also, and this is very germane to the point in question, he uses his membership in a group which suffers discrimination, to justify his own bigotry against another group which suffers discrimination. This is the cult of victimhood, a hallmark of the modern right-wing movement, taken to the disgusting finale.
Posted by: tensor on February 10, 2008 05:10 PMBecause there is no longer a stigma associated with choosing to be a single parent. It's part of liberal moral relativism. The "Great Society" rewarded single parenthood with Welfare.
There is no right and wrong in the world of liberals, or "black and white" as you put it, BA.
It's also, cynically, about fostering government-as-parents dependency. A constituency the Democrats nurture.
I have to disagree with you. Policies drive a lot of social behavior. An example, for dinks (dual income, no kids) a decision to marry might be based on the marriage tax penalty. I agreed with Bush's proposal to give greater bnefits to married low-income couples. I do not believe that any person should be in an abusive relationship, but let's deal with reality. Many middle and upper class women stay with louts until the kids are out of school and established. What Bush's proposal was doing was viewing one aspect of marriage as an economic relationship and the fact is two wage earners have greater economic clout that one wage earner and this additional income is often enough to move a family out of poverty.
The culture has a great deal to do with it. The hip hop and MTV culture which doesn't show consequences. For every Jamie Lynn Spears who got herself knocked-up at 16 and has some funds from her entertainment career and family there are thousands of girls who see this image and think that this is the ticket. What they don't see is that she will have a nanny and be able to get away on the weekend if she tires of the kid.
I ride the bus and see the young mothers with two or three kids who look old and weary before their time. I look at their children and think, probably another generation lost.
Posted by: WVH on February 10, 2008 05:16 PMSeems easy enough to test by looking at the rate of single parenthood among church-going folks (with presumably more rigid moral standards) and those that don't. Is it different?
No right or wrong in the world of liberals? You must be a fun guy at a party.
Posted by: BA on February 10, 2008 05:21 PMKeep your filthy words out of my mouth; I have higher standards. Every statement I made about the man came from his own public statements. He has even told his flock to buy shares of Microsoft, so they can try to force an end to that company's tolerance of gays. (Strangely, the company thinks that a policy of acceptance will help it to recruit the most talented workers, leading to continued success in the market. How silly.)
Speaking of hate, srogers, do you approve of the Rev. Hutcherson's bigotry? Do you believe that persons who identify as homosexuals should be forced to sit in the same room with someone who openly hates them?
Your wrong about Microsoft, too. Hutcherson never has implied in any way that the company should not hire gays. He objects to the company's leaders supporting gay rights legislation.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2008 05:54 PMYou state that you have higher standards, but you don't write that way. The point of the original post was that leftists are intolerant of people with whom they disagree, to the extent that they believe it is OK to prohibit a religious black man from speaking to students about his experiences as a black man in a society that still has racist members. I tried to support that point by showing thehim that his comparison of Hutcherson to white supremacists is flawed. I tried to state a "liberal" view, in which I can tolerate Hutcherson's opinion because its based on an honest interpretation of his religion, disagree with it, and still give the man credit for his perspective on being a black man in modern American society.
All you did, over and over, is call Hutcherson names. Your analysis is childish and reeks of hatred. And then you call me "filthy" and try to call me a bigot by association. I stand by my initial appraisal of your writing: lacking in content and full of hate.
Posted by: srogers on February 10, 2008 05:59 PMSingle parenthood a good thing?
No.
Blame it on the Liberals if it makes you feel better - that doesn't lead our society to a solution though.
Was the problem created by economics (great society)? or relaxed social mores?, or both?, or more than that?
Posted by: BA on February 10, 2008 06:01 PMIt doesn't make me feel better. It also doesn't make me feel better that liberals, who mock "traditional family values" will not admit that they have been wrong.
Where did those "relaxed social mores" come from? I don't think it was from conservatives.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2008 06:10 PMGive me even one example of Republican "hate talking and intolerance".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2008 06:26 PMRev. Hutcherson repeatly says one may hate the sin, but not the sinner. It is the act, not the person that he disagrees with. I can't recall him saying that gay people shouldn't have jobs, be educated, or have the right to live in a neighborhood. If he has said those things, please post them, because that would be wrong. From what I understand of his position, he supports the traditional family.
Posted by: WVH on February 10, 2008 07:46 PMMeanwhile, no one defending bigotry here has said that minors should tolerate having bigotry thrust into their educations. Failure to defend this imposition allows that the kids were right all along.
Finally, we note the irony of getting a lecture on intolerance here. When will the proprietor of this site allow comments upon his own posts?
Posted by: tensor on February 10, 2008 08:43 PM1. Define bigotry. You are throwing that term around. Please provide your definition.
2. Are you saying that religious people are not entitled to an opinion on what scoiety should look like?
3. You are trying to mix race with sexual orientation. They are not the same, no matter how many straw arguments those pushing a gay agenda want to make comparisons. I can't change my race.
I believe the Townhall debate can be accessed through TVW. I agree with Rev Hutcherson on the miscenagtion argument. He dealt with Sims on that one. Personally, I find the argument insulting as I shouldn't be compared to some one's sex act.
Now, I agree with you on Stefan's posts, if it is in fact Stefan posting. Even if there is no response, there should be comments.
Posted by: WVH on February 10, 2008 08:56 PMActually, I've heard several interviews of him where he says he doesn't care what Microsoft does, as Microsoft is a private organization and is entitled to do what it pleases. He just doesn't want them lobbying to have the state force other employers to offer same sex benefits. There is a world of difference.
Before you start accusing someone of taking a particular position, make sure you actually know what you're talking about.
Posted by: Mike H on February 10, 2008 11:11 PMOK, then tit for tat no problem with what the Rev. says inside his church (a private club), but he shouldn't lobby society because others disagree with him.
Fixed that world of difference.
Posted by: BA on February 11, 2008 09:50 AMIt is too bad that most schools really don't teach the basics anymore, like the First Amendment which guarantees us freedom of speech and freedom to practice our religion. If you were living in the EU, Britain, or Canada, you would be correct that quoting Leviticus could get you brought up on charges which is what happened to a Lutheran Minister in Sweden.
I am going to say it again, if you lame republicans don't get yourselves together, the EU will be here and the NEA agenda will be shoved down your throat. Think homeschooling is the answer, wrong, there are cases in Germany against homeschoolers.
Billary will push a European style interpretation of the laws and no, you will not be able to wait 4, 8, or 12 years to put the genie back in the bottle.
Posted by: WVH on February 11, 2008 10:08 AMI don't think the Republicans are going to get it together anytime soon. The mainstream press is leftist, and so are most of the teachers from daycare through college. Republicans are constantly on the defensive and end up knuckling under to the left like McCain.
Ask Americans which party restricts their rights and they will say Republicans. That's what they've been taught.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 11, 2008 12:33 PMFrom the OED: "The condition of a bigot; obstinate and unenlightened attachment to a particular creed, opinion, system, or party." Hutcherson freely admits his ideas of what society should look like come from a book written centuries ago. If he wants to show that Massachusetts, which recognizes gay marriages, is inferior to Mississippi, which does not, he is free to do so.
"2. Are you saying that religious people are not entitled to an opinion on what scoiety should look like?"
Of course the Rev. Hutcherson has the right to his opinion. He has the right to express in in public. He has no right to a quiet, respectful response from any audience. He does not have a right to address an audience of minors at a school; that is a privilege. The students, in my opinion, are under no obligation to give him a civil welcome. Do not they have the right to self-expression, even if the Rev. Hutcherson or Sound Politics disagrees? It's their school, after all.
"3. You are trying to mix race with sexual orientation. They are not the same, no matter how many straw arguments those pushing a gay agenda want to make comparisons. I can't change my race."
You can change your religion, and no employer can withhold benefits from a married couple of different religions. You cannot be punished (anymore) for choosing to marry a person of a different skin tone. Assuming homosexuality is a choice, it offends Hutcherson the same way miscegenation offends racial bigots. Go away, and leave the couple alone. They're not harming anyone.
I love how Hutcherson's expectation of a quiet, respectful hearing somehow trumps the free speech rights of an audience which really didn't want to hear him in the first place.
Posted by: tensor on February 11, 2008 03:55 PM1. Your definition of bigotry is:
"The condition of a bigot; obstinate and unenlightened attachment to a particular creed, opinion, system, or party...."
The key reason that I believe that traditionalists and Reverend Hutcherson are not bigots comes directly from your definition. I am a traditionalist in terms of the role of the heterosexual two parent family. This comes from my doctoral research, a tangent of which is the Black family in the US. The largest failed social experiment in secular progressive ideology was the effect of "Great Society" programs on the Black family. One only has to look at the damage done to children headed by single female heads of households. Not looking at the caretaker role, but gender identification, kids need both sexes. You may disagree and I expect that you do but based on history and observation Rev. Hutcherson is not unenlightened.
2. You said:
"He has no right to a quiet, respectful response from any audience. He does not have a right to address an audience of minors at a school; that is a privilege."
What ever happened to just plain common courtesy?
Would you also say that Dan Savage the Love Advice columnist for the Stranger should also be denied the right to speak on a topic such as what he learned campaigning for Mitt Romney as a gay man? Should he be shouted down an abused? Should he be denied the privledge to speak?
3. The key is issue is how one defines marriage. I believe that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Now, for same sex couples, I, personally have no objection to domestic partnerships which give health benefits or rights of inheritance and the ability to make health decisions for the other partner. I don't support gay marriage and will fight that proposition.
Posted by: WVH on February 11, 2008 10:00 PMRepublicans and Democrats are two sides of the same oppressive coin. We now have a Mexican-style single party system. That is a sure sign that our government has become too large and invasive with way too much impact on our daily lives.
Liberty reduces the intensity of emotions in politics. When people are truly free to live their lives as they see fit and to raise their children in their own values, they loose the desire to control the government.
When I ask myself why we have all come to accept and even promote the expansion of government, the only answer I can come up with is that our history classes we took in school brainwashed us into thinking that our government has and will be a benevolent force always on the "right" side of the issues. When in reality, our government, like all governments has been a destructive force of oppression since its inception (i.e. slaves were only 3/5's of a person.)
I do not hate America. On the contrary I so strongly love our country that I try every day to help convince people that bigger government always makes things worse, no matter who is in charge, and that liberty is what made us great. If we don't start drastically reducing government at all levels, the "grand experiment" will end in failure if it hasn't already.
Posted by: blindman on February 11, 2008 11:32 PMWhat exactly is your point and how do you make it work in a country that will have 500 million or more in about 20 years? The fact of the matter is that some rules are necessary if nothing else just to order society. The libertarian delusion works in small areas like a Vermont or Maine. This is a fairly complex society and like it or not it exists in a global context.
You said:
"Liberty reduces the intensity of emotions in politics. When people are truly free to live their lives as they see fit and to raise their children in their own values, they loose the desire to control the government.
So, we should allow pedophiles to adopt children and raise them in their own way. Isn't that liberty? We should allow polygamy or better yet, in Pierce County there was a group that loved horses too much, that is liberty.
Oh, by the way, I don't feel like obeying traffic laws, we should be like the Autoban. Further, I think taxes are immoral and Wesley Snipes is my hero, so should I never have to pay taxes, right.
Even if you strip government down to the bare minimum of defense, diplomacy, and courts, at some point in the excercise of these functions some one will intrude on your liberty. Suppose they need to use eminent domain for a military base.
This is a complex society and the world of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn doesn't exist. The traditional family is the best institution to raise children on average. Other permutations are less successful and unless you advocate the Shaker society, remember they died out, society has to successful reproduce itself.
Posted by: WVH on February 11, 2008 11:59 PMCan we step back for a second an look at marriage from a different perspective? I define marriage as a religious function should not be regulated by the government at all. Do we need to get licenses to get baptised or confirmed? Why do we need one to get married?
Well, that's simple. We've made the mistake of co-mingling the probate function of the civil court system with the religious function of "getting married". To see exactly what the state has an interest in regulating, just look at what happens at a divorce proceeding. The state handles the dissolution of the liability, power of attorney, inheritance, and tax status, as well as division of property and parental duties. There's nothing in there about squaring things with God or telling your church or whatever. If the church isn't involved with the divorce, why should it be involved with the marriage?
It is important to notice that all of the things decided during a divorce can be set up between two people using ordinary civil contracts and where necessary (e.g. legal guardianship) state legal recognition. Any two people of any gender can sign power of attorney contracts, wills, co-ownership and guardianship contracts. But because we have co-mingled a fundamentally religious practice of "marriage" with the tax code and other "recognition" benefits (e.g. survivor benefits, health coverage, etc), we are creating a privileged status for a subset of society. I think there is a strong argument that the current setup violates the equal protection principles in the Constitution.
Here is what I propose we do about this:
1. Deregulate marriage and restore the proper division between church and state. Strike from the law books any mention of the religious practice of "marriage". There's no mention of baptism, or confirmation, there should be no mention of "marriage".
2. Replace the legal apparatus with a standardized "contract of recognition". Any two people could then enter into a contract whereby they share liability, tax status, property, custody, inheritance rights, power of attorney, and other "recognized" benefits. This provides a legal foundation for companies already wishing to offer benefits to domestic partners while preserving recognition for people who choose traditional lifestyles.
3. Restore the rights of churches to manage their own affairs without government intrusion. Let them define marriage and choose who to marry and what a marriage really means.
This solution gives an equal and "blind" legal framework for recognizing the reality of people's domestic lifestyles while preserving---and I would argue---enhancing the sanctity of marriage.
Marriage can and will be defined by churches as a union between a man and a woman, but the state doesn't care, it treats everybody equally. You can go to your church and get married if your church will marry you, but you'll also have to sign and record a contract of recognition to enter into a "union", defined in the legal sense.
If we did this, we could call of this front of the culture war and all go home happy.
If you consider yourself a conservative and your knee-jerk reaction to my post is along the lines of, "we need to prevent them gays from getting married", the image how you feel when liberals tell you that you shouldn't be allowed to own guns or develop your land. I assure you that they feel as passionately about trampling your Constitutional rights for "security" or environmental reasons as you do about trampling their equal protection rights for religious reasons.
If the government was smaller and we all had more liberty, we wouldn't shiver at the thought of a federal government controlled by the other party.
Posted by: blindman on February 12, 2008 12:08 AM"So, we should allow pedophiles to adopt children and raise them in their own way. Isn't that liberty?"
No, that's child abuse if the pedophile sexually abuses the child.
"We should allow polygamy or better yet, in Pierce County there was a group that loved horses too much, that is liberty."
Sure, to each his own. How does this hurt you or anybody else exactly?
"Oh, by the way, I don't feel like obeying traffic laws, we should be like the Autoban."
They have traffic laws on the Autoban. And besides, not having a speed limit is fine as long as you have stiff penalties for irresponsibility. Driving should be handled like we should handle firearms. It's perfectly legal, but you will be severely punished if you hurt somebody or are irresponsible. Liberty is hard, you have to put on your big boy pants and be responsible.
"The traditional family is the best institution to raise children on average."
I'm pretty sure this hasn't been proven, but I'll give it to you. The idea that liberty is antiquated is completely wrong. The only way we'll ever survive in a country with 500 million without having mass oppression of one kind or another is to maximize liberty.
Expansion of government is a double edged sword. If conservatives expand government in an attempt to prevent homosexual behavior, then when the liberals win control, they'll use that new governmental power to take your guns away or force you onto light rail. It cuts both ways and people get angrier and angrier on both sides of the aisle.
If the government can willfully ignore some parts of the Constitution now, eventually they'll ignore all of it.
Posted by: blindman on February 12, 2008 12:29 AMYou can call a carrot a tomato, it is not. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
In reality, you want me to say gay marriage is OK, it is not. I do understand that committed gay couples love each other and I, personally don't have any problem with domestic partnerships. To quote the Rolling Stones, you can't always get what you want, in this case gay unions to be accepted as co-equal with marriage, they are not.
The preferred option for society is heterosexual marriage and we are really fighting about what is the preferred option because after all "progressives" don't want to make judgements, right because all cultures are equal. Hogwash, gential mutilation is not an acceptable cultural attribute. So, according to the Stones people may not get what they want, but they get what they need, in this case civil unions. I expect the cultural wars of this one to be long and drawn out. No, I do not support gay marriage. I don't expect that many religious leaders will support it either. I know the next fight is in the legislature because the agenda is to make WA the next state in support of gay marriage.
One more general thought to throw at you. I mostly speak of the federal government when I say "government", although my post about marriage was specifically for Washington state since regulation of marriage is done at the state level.
I am a Republican, but a member of the liberty caucus. I believe that the fed should be strictly limited to the enumerated powers outlined in the constitution. If you haven't read what they are, start in Article 1, Section 8, where it explicitly states what Congress can do. It even starts with the phrase "The Congress shall have the power to..."!
I generally believe that the more impact a policy decision has on your daily life, the closer to home it should be decided. Social policies should be decided upon at a local level rather than the federal level. The reason is that you are far more likely to actually know your representative to local government and they are far more likely to get an earful from you if they do something stupid.
Posted by: blindman on February 12, 2008 12:50 AM"I generally believe that the more impact a policy decision has on your daily life, the closer to home it should be decided. Social policies should be decided upon at a local level rather than the federal level. The reason is that you are far more likely to actually know your representative to local government and they are far...."
We agree.
1. Marriage has to be looked at in a national context because of full faith and credit. I support a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. What states do about gay unions is up to them in terms of benefits.
2. I support sending the issue of abortion to the states.
3. I support neighborhood schools.
I am an indie and I vote for people who support schools and families.
Posted by: WVH on February 12, 2008 01:00 AMSo when did it become OK for the state to regulate religious practice? My great-grandparents didn't need a license to get married. They needed their Pastor's OK though. Then they went to the county court house and recorded that they were now Mr. and Mrs. for legal reasons (e.g. shared property, etc).
What I propose is *not* gay marriage. There is no church involved and the state is certainly not a religious institution. If you have to label it in today's vocabulary, it would be a "civil union" for all couples. The state shouldn't even mention marriage in the laws.
Why is it that religious conservatives so fervently seek religious separation when they want to set school curriculum, but then seek the merging of religion and the state when seeking to control their neighbors? You can't have it both ways.
BTW, you seem to have a preoccupation with sexual violence (e.g. pedophiles adopting children, people loving horses too much, genital mutilation.) Does this come up in your posts that touch on homosexuality because you equate the two?
On a side note, I happen to agree with you about how "progressives" seek to avoid making judgments. I think moral relativism is a spark that starts the fire of oppression. It is one end of the spectrum with "strict moralizing" on the other end. There is a right and a wrong. And not everybody is created equally.
Posted by: blindman on February 12, 2008 01:15 AM1. You are proposing the European system. Europe is so lost now that the Archbishop of Canterbury is proposing Sharia law. You arguments for gay marriage don't persuade me. I will fight you on that.
2. I don't know what you mean by religious separation. Part of the reason we have shootings in schools is a lack of values curriculum, whether you consider values curriculum religious or not, I don't know. Values and ethics involve the ability to make judgements based upon a code and to know right from wrong.
3. Pedophiles can be both heterosexual and homosexual, the common denominator is they prey on the vulnerable. They can also claim a religious faith as well. Bottom line, they are liars.
We agree to be opponents in the attempt to mainstream the concept of gay marriage. I hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Posted by: WVH on February 12, 2008 01:31 AMI understand the objection about the full faith and credit clause. It is precisely that clause that makes me want to deregulate the religious institution of marriage. Having a Constitutional amendment defining that a "marriage is between one man and one woman" is ridiculous. That's like making an amendment defining baptism, or barmitzvah.
By resorting to civil contracts with explicit language covering the unique tax, property, and liability status of two people living in a domestic arrangement, states can honor the full faith and credit clause and once again be Constitutional since it doesn't confer any religious meaning.
Gay couples aside, there still exists a problem for kids under 18 getting married in one state and moving to another. If one or both are "too young" (it varies by state), some states won't recognize that they are married. Again, the regulation of marriage and the full faith and credit clause are incompatible.
Remember, any two people can enter into civil contracts to establish all of these rights, but those contracts don't confer on them the recognition benefits codified in the "marriage" laws. Federal immigrations laws are especially destructive to people's lives in this regard.
To fix that error the legal code, we should strike the marriage laws, and allow for the "recognition benefits" to be conferred onto any two people entering into the civil union contract.
I personally don't like the term "civil union" because of all the emotion it dredges up in people, that's why I called them "recognition contracts" in a previous post.
Posted by: blindman on February 12, 2008 01:32 AM"I hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable."
Sure. I've enjoyed taking over this thread with you.
The school shootings are the direct result of a lack of discipline. Discipline teaches that there are consequences to bad behaviour. School shootings are the ultimate test of societal boundaries and the pinnacle of a long career of acting out. It's like a drug addict taking larger and larger hits to maintain the same high. Kids act out more and more to maintain the same level of attention it gets them.
BTW, the juxtaposition of your mention of religious separation and values gives the impression that you think values are inherently religious in nature. I disagree. I'm not nice to people because I want to go to heaven, I'm nice to people because they're people and they deserve polite treatment.
Posted by: blindman on February 12, 2008 01:48 AMYou said this:
"Remember, any two people can enter into civil contracts to establish all of these rights, but those contracts don't confer on them the recognition benefits codified in the "marriage" laws. Federal immigrations laws are especially destructive to people's lives in this regard."
That is precisely the difference between social conservatives and those pushing a gay marriage agenda. The preferred relationship is a heterosexual marriage not a gay union.
Regarding immigration laws, every country has the right to assert its sovereignty. Mexico does by putting troops at its southern border to keep out Central Americans. They care not a wit whether their action is destructive to people's lives or not.
The majority has the right to define the type of society where famlies are given support to raise children and they as the source of renewal for society. Still, every individual has rights guarnateed by the Consitution. No specific minority has the right to force an ultimately, in my opinion, destructive agenda on society. I know the comback is what about affirmative action. Well, affirmative action as envisioned by Nixon is vastly different than a quota. He envisioned opening up the economic benefits, not destroying basic institutions. The gay marriage agenda wants to destroy basic family institutions.
I'm probably going to hurt your feelings, but gay unions are different and not the same as traditional marriage. Sorry.
Unfortunately, Rev. Hutcherson's message of strong family support often gets lost by people who just basically really don't like his personality and the fact that he is a conservative Black. Lest any Catholics or Orthodox Jews think we really have nothing in common with the attacks on this loudmouth Black guy, think again. Pope Bendedict has essentially the same message and those pushing the gay agenda would go after him hammer and tongs, they just don't want the wrath of Catholics at this point in the struggle. Traditionalists of all flavors need to wake-up.
Posted by: WVH on February 12, 2008 08:30 AMBombastic self promoters like Hutcherson draw all kinds of reactions - that's perfectly natural. It might be wrong, but many people take his anti-gay messages as hate messages. Hate is sometimes hard to take by people who feel hatred. A minister should know better.
Couldn't they have found someone better to speak at the High School.
Posted by: Redflag on February 13, 2008 12:06 AMWould you say the same thing if what is inside the box is the same, but the packaging is different. Should Pope Benedict be allowed to speak at a high school, he does not support gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, or divorce? Should he be prevented from speaking if someone asked him the question what he thought the moral implications of homosexuality are, in his opinion? Let the Pontiff speak or no? I don't know the current president of Naral, should they be allowed to speak? Isn't the issue common courtesy? There are ways to handle speakers who speak on "hot" topics or are controversal, it is called balanced discussion with time for critical analysis and reflection. Frankly, I think both sides are fairly intolerant. I remember a couple of threads where I participated on the issue of children's health care. We do not have civil discourse, but abusive rants.
Posted by: WVH on February 13, 2008 12:22 AM