I am not sure if that is so, richie. A number of the fellows here see America as, at least, a role model and bulwark of the world system. A lot of them have no problem with affirmative action in the form of outreach and recruitment, but only in the form of quotas and set- asides. As far as I can tell, there is general acceptance of women in diverse roles in society, and an understanding that women are individuals first. There is only an objection to lowering standards, for example, for firemen, for purposes of affirmative action.
Also, of course, some of us our pro- life. In my case, I would be lenient in the first trimester, and would only sanction the provider, but I would not like to see any abortion treated as being all right. Some would leave first trimester abortions legal.
Most are pro- immigration, and those who worry about it do so mainly because they are afraid that immigrants are not expected to assimilate enough any more.
The most devisive thing, I suppose, is homosexuality. Some of us are embarrassed by, and occasionally have words with, those who gay- bash. I accept that homosexual marriage would be too disruptive of social mores, particuarly at this time, although I have toyed with the idea of civil union as a reasonable compromise. The main thing is that it is likely enough that most are gay due to deeply rooted causes that cannot reliably be dealt with, and there is no compelling social reason not to afford gays a high degree of tolerance. Those who are more Bible- oriented often disagree with this assessment strongly. However, even they have said that tolerance is better than going out of one's way to bash.
You may be surprised to learn, for example, that JLA and I, despite markedly different styles (to say the least), rarely disagree on a substantive issue. He hates gay bashing as much as I do, dislikes the neo- Confederate overtones of some conservatives, believes in taking women as individuals, and believes that immigration has been a strength of this country........ |
