crfriend wrote:I suspect this view, while appealing, is overly pessimistic, and that if sincerely and honestly queried on the topic, most would at least concede that the notion of equality is a decent one -- even when it's pointed out that some of their own prejudices (and, be honest, we all have them) deserve equal treatment simply on ethical grounds.
Perhaps. I fancy that I do seem to be somewhat tolerant that most people I met, on both sides (conservative and liberal). Often times my biggest issue is that tolerance puts me at odds with my own ethics. One example is freedom of speech. It's my belief that freedom should be protected (we do have the right to complain even if it is for a dumb ideal). It's our fundamental right to discuss things. It is THAT principle that I hold some
very unpopular opinions. For example, despite the fact I think they're being unfair, I stand with misogynists right to at least
be heard. Because after all, some points they bring up, are valid. Further, although I absolutely DETEST the thought of racial supremacy, I will never try to silence those on either side, and I'm not going to carry that thought any further because it would slingshot this thread into very unsavory grounds.
Because at the end of the day... everyone's got a right to hate. You can't force love. But you can try to teach, and civilly discuss matters, and hopefully, once all is said and done, we as a society will be better for it.... hopefully.
Our nation (the U.S.) has an excellent framework for forward thinking thought, that being the bill of rights. In addition to other amendments like the 14th which deny states the authority to strip the rights of U.S. citizens as granted in the federal constitution. My fear is that many politicians are attempting to strip those rights, by promoting one agenda or the other, or favoring one religious view over the other. When we strip the rights of just one person for no reason, just because he or she is different, or holds an unpopular, or opposing view, then we all are in danger. Without the right to choose, you can never be free. Granted, most people may have no desire to be transgender, or even homosexual. But without the right to CHOOSE, how can we call our selves a free society?
But you are right Carl, we ALL have prejudices. Myself included. But I believe what separates a good person from a bad one, is when confronted with a prejudice, is the good will take personal time to grapple with the conviction, and finally yield to reason and fairness. From my experience, often times, a candid look at my own views and convictions seems to put me at odds with everyone else in the discussion. As a child, I was on my way to being raised to being a poster child homophobic, racist, bigoted zealot. I was taught that gays are sick, blacks are lower class, and protestant Christianity was the only true way to God. And I can honestly say, that I don't really know how it happened, but somewhere along the way, for some reason, that type of mentality just didn't resonate with my own ethical view. I can point to no day when I said "I don't want to judge". It just sort of happened. Perhaps it's because I tend to be somewhat of a literalist. I.E. in my Christian upbringing... when Jesus said "don't judge"... I took it that we should not judge. Thus, it confused me when dad would say "gays are wrong and immoral", then tell me to live in accordance with Christian morality. Granted, the bibles view on homosexuality is clear... but then again... it says "don't judge". So what's the deal dad? Or when I would visit family with dixie on a flag pole, you'd hear them give God the praise and glory, and thank him for being blessed to live in a "free nation", but when they prayer is over, begin racist remarks. I found it very confusing at a young age. And later in life, gradually concluded that they are "wrong" mainly because their own world view is at conflict with itself. Essentially... they want it both ways. Even my present "religious" view sometimes put me in conflicts. As some may know, a common Wiccan (witches) tenet is to "do as you will, provided it harms none". Sounds easy enough. But doesn't eating a steak harm the steer? Isn't taking an anti-viral harmful to the virus? I reconcile these conflicts in my own way, the best I can, which could fill a book, and is not the point of this post,
but the point is that it's the acknowledgement that there is a conflict in the conviction and the endevour to rectify that conflict that drives us to become better people.
crfriend wrote:I hold the rather unpopular opinion that the Union should have let the Confederacy go in the 1860s. It would have saved a heck of a lot of bloodshed at the time, and would also have saved what was left of the Union some real trouble a hundred years later and beyond. It's kind of fun debating the point, and I've won a few and been held to a draw on several, but, it's ultimately rather pointless. As we know, we cannot change history, we just have to deal with the fallout of decisions taken by prior generations and do the best we can. Part of "doing our best" should include not over-reacting to things.
It is interesting to think about what the world would be like had the south had won. I posed that question to dad once, and he said it would have just been continued warfare over the decades. Ironically, it's one of the rare times my father ever said something that seemed thoughtful to me in regards to a somewhat political discussion.
Strictly speaking, in as far as the butterfly effect goes. Had such an event occurred I wouldn't exist. It's highly unlikely my mother would have traveled to a foreign nation and happened to met my father, to eventually create me. So I selfishly state I'm glad the North won. Such a debate would be similar to a religious debate. Nothing could be proven because virtually all of the variables would be hypothetical. It's interesting to think, in the U.S.'s efforts to bring "western democracy and freedom" to states such as those in the middle east, how would a nation, directly to the south be regarded in their view on slavery. Some "heritage" people (redneck southerners who like to pretend they're not racist) are quick to claim the civil war wasn't about slavery, but about states rights. Some of my research has shown that yes it was about states rights... among them, the right to be a "slave state". Once again, we come back to that old conflict scenario, wanting it both ways. Arguments aside, I took a look one day at the proposed constitution of the C.S.A., and it's pretty clear slavery was a practice that the proposed nation wanted available, and legal... so with that in mind, I find it difficult to accept that slavery just wasn't an issue during the civil war, as many southerner's insist. Maybe it wasn't the ONLY issue, but it certainly was one of the major ones.
What's very interesting is the notion that the civil war was nothing more than "poor people fighting a rich mans war" on BOTH sides. A practice I find detestable regardless of who's right or wrong. The thought of simple minded, albeit innocent people fighting to the death, for nothing more than the profit of the elite makes my blood boil. It happened then, and it's happening now.
Ahh... good discussion. Love starting the day with fresh thoughts to think about. Man, it's like the feeling of getting clothes right out of the dryer.
Carl, if you ever pass this way, try to make time to spend a few hours here in my corner of the globe. I bet we could talk and banter all day. I know it would certainly be my pleasure.
