Some may respect your absolute devotion to what you interpret as the word of God handed down through the Bible. I find it extremely dangerous, the same way I find the absolute devotion of Stalinists and Nazis to the words handed down by their apostles dangerous. People who believe in the absolute righteousness of their cause--whether they're members of the CP, the abortion rights movement, the Christian Right, or a Middle East terrorist cell--constitute a far greater threat to democracy and civil society than some philandering liar who happened to find himself in the White House.
I am thankful that your Manichean worldview--illustrated by your constant rhetorical images of good Christians vs. evil liberals, God-fearing nuclear families vs. depraved homosexuals, blessed defenders of fetuses vs. murderous abortion-rights advocates--represents but a tiny minority opinion.
Let me say that I am NEVER certain about any of my opinions, that I read the messages on these threads to encounter opposing opinions and hopefully enlighten myself and others.
Yes, it's tough not having some book--be it Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, the Bible, or the Koran--to refer to whenever I am faced with an ethical or philosophical question. It's tough to live life on the fly. But I consider the nuances and contradictions of my existential and philosophical purgatory a more honest approach to life's big questions than the certainty and doubtlessness of your heaven-hell dichotomy.
I am operating on the plane of simple decency and integrity.
Your simple decency and integrity may be abhorrent to others in society. Unless you cling to some doctrine that spells it out for you, there is no objective criteria for such ideals. My definition of integrity is the consistent application of principles. I believe in live and let live. You have constantly harped on the depravity of homosexuals. You have said that you would not allow one to rent a room in your building or work for you simply because he/she is gay. If you believe in equal opportunities for all peoples, where is the integrity in that?
If one claims a code of honor and respect, and then gives not a "damn" about dishonor and disrespect in a president, that person submits a stunning contradiction.
Just as I wouldn't whether Joe down the street or Johannes Pilch lies about his sex life or not, I don't care what Bill in the White House does with his. As long as Joe picks up my garbage on time and Johannes Pilch doesn't throw me into a soccer stadium to await my execution, I don't care. I live my life striving for honor, humility, and respect for my fellow person, including you Johannes, and don't care if you do not. To me, the job of the president has been to manage the global and domestic flows of capital while minimizing the public relations damage from capital's human side effects. I don't see it as some exalted American pontificate.
We are not talking political realities, we are talking simple integrity and what is required to maintain honor in the face of flagrant lies and adultery. Honor requires that one gives a "damn", unless one applies a Clintonian definition to the word "honor".
My implicit support for Clinton as the lesser of two or three evils, has everything to do with political realities and not with honor.
Honor requires that one reject them both, unless your honor is Clintonian honor.
I do reject them both. I've already said that Clinton, for the good of his party, the few positive shreds of his social agenda, and the American people, should resign. I just prefer him to his enemies. Period.
And it is about yours also. Think about it.
I thought about it all day. I don't think it's about my morals. I've never cheated on any woman I've been in a relationship with. And I do not like liars.
Lawd Hab murci own m'life. Come hep me aginst dat ENDeepindint cownsell. WOOoo... Man shoot. Dem e-vul GOP mens gon git me. Even de sound of 'em jez makes me wanna wet m'pants! Listen to it-- "gop". Oooh oooh oooh. "gop" mens. Uhm jez fisickly sced. Oooh. Dem mens is gon tear me up.
Your mocking use of the black vernacular to depict liberals may be more telling of where you are coming than you may wish to let on.
Well, tax evasion arguably does not break public trust anywhere near the way in which does lying flatly and repeatedly to the American public and to the American judical system, using high ranking officials to perpetuate the lies.
I hope the Republicans do focus on the obstruction of justice charge. I think they have a decent case with that regard. The more I've listened to people on this thread and the more I've read the evidence in the Starr report, the more I've come to believe that Clinton did abuse his powers in trying to cover up the Lewinsky matter. My only worry had been that Congress would be so tied up in this whole matter that they'd leave the nation's other business unattended. Ironically, the opposite has been true, as everyone scrambles to look busy so that no one can tar them with that very same charge. I've grown indifferent to the impeachment process. Much more concerned nowadays about the NBA strike. I miss basketball.
This thing has hurt much more than just Clinton, but liberals don't care.
That's your interpretation. I think "this thing" has sparked a lively and healthy debate about ethics nationwide. I think such dialogue is a good thing.
But since our country no longer cares when a man breaks his contract with a woman, I certainly do not think he can be impeached for adultery. His lies are the things for which I have always maintained he should be impeached.
You hate everything that Clinton stands for. That's fine. Unfortunately for you, the Republican Party's stance on abortion and its indebtedness to the Christian Right make it statistically unelectable on a national level. The only way for the Republicans to win post-Houston '92 is to redeem themselves by putting up a William Weld or Pete Wilson as a candidate. A move people like yourself will not allow.
And so we can just wink at moral garbage, tossing it up as too complex and ambiguous to care about.
If my father had done what Clinton did I would be ashamed of him. Fortunately, Clinton is merely the president and not my father nor one of my friends. To me the president of the United States is little different from a police captain in 1920s Chicago, keeping the kickbacks from the booze up and the bodycounts from the gangland killings down. I don't see him as someone who's supposed to present us with any kind of virtue.
Very well then, just do not force me to in any way pay for what I consider clear murder, and stop sending your liberal dogs after those who teach their children at home.
Deal. The government doesn't fund abortions for poor women now, does it? Isn't that what the Hyde amendment was all about? And what do I care if you want to teach your kids to be good Christian soldiers at home? Feed them dog food for all I care. Just don't sexually molest them or deny them medical care and I have no gripe with what you do with your kids. I'm not the liberal antichrist in your sick fantasies. More of a liberterian.
You can have your murder and your crumbling schools. I merely want nothing to do with either.
But I don't want murder or crumbling schools either. I believe the murder rates in the cities are high because of the proliferation of guns, something you buddies in the GOP advocate. The crumbling schools in the city are a result of a declining industrial tax base. I don't see either as some moral failing on the part of the good, decent poor people who live in our nation's inner cities.
The homosexual has the rights of any other citizen, this, as a component of his citizenship, and not his behavior. But when liberals desire protection of the homoesexual's actions, and try to force others to accept these perversions, the liberal goes too far.
Here you contradict yourself. I agree with you that homosexuals should have the same right as other citizens, but to me that includes the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of non-work-related issues. I'll entertain the notion--which disagree with--that homosexuality is an ideology, a system of beliefs, ideas, and values. Let's say I'm a factory owner and I find out one of my worker's adheres to the Christian ideology. I fire him because I don't like Christians. In that case, I should be sued for job discrimination, because I have fired the poor sap because of something that had nothing to do with his work performance. The same, I believe goes for gays.
But when it comes to non-passive characteristics, such as homosexual behavior and other actions, society must reserve the right to discrimminate,
Johannes, how can you be so sure homosexuality is a non-passive characteristic? Is it something the Bible tells you? A gut feeling? How can you be so sure? I have gay friends who denied and denied and denied to themselves that they were different until the pain got so unbearable that they nearly exploded. I know other gays who knew they were gay as soon as they hit puberty. I am not at all certain that homosexuality--like religion or political affiliation--is a non-passive characteristic.
To me, it is worth prison or death to stand against you here.
Yes, Johannes, you will make a fine foot soldier in the army of hate.
Get up off your butt and work. Obtain financial security and wealth,
In addition to my full-time job as a magazine editor, I do freelance work. If you'd like to see a copy of the magazine, simply PM or e-mail me your snail-mail address. That goes for everyone here.
And stop being so paranoid.
After listening to you accuse me of trying to turn your kids into homosexuals and force your wife to get an abortion, that comment is priceless.
I will fight you with it until I conquer; and should I lose, I will simply defy you.
Hopefully, the authorities will catch up with you before you bomb any federal buildings. ;-)
The art was a direct assault upon my identity. Nuclear weapons do not assault your identity.
Ahhh, but that is where you are completely wrong. The nuclear stockpile I help bankroll I consider an assault on not just my identity, but on the identity and safety of all humanity. That aside, consider the case of the Palestinian-American running a store on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn. His tax money eventually winds up financing a government in the Middle East that LITERALLY assaults his identity.
Americans are free to assault me with "art", but they ought not to be free to make me pay for it with my own sweat.
Reread my original post. Like I said, I don't think the government should be funding art.
Your totalitarian way is unacceptable and un-American, and so we who reject your way have no choice but to "deal with it", just as you say.
Your constant misuse of the term totalitarian deserves comment. I prefer not to throw around terms like that. They become meaningless outside of an academic setting. The eco-stalinist-feminist totalitarian state you fear is but a paranoid delusion. The far left in this country is not organized and does not have the resources to be any threat to pluralistic society I believe in. The far right, however, has become such a threat that even the FBI has recognized the danger.
It is your implicit call for theocracy and your reckless violence-laced rhetoric against "liberals" and gays--despite your occasional nods to civil liberties--that are a harbinger of totalitarianism. It is your refusal to recognize the pluralistic, multicultural, ethico-philosophical diversity of contemporary America that constitutes a threat to democracy.
Some people might respect your devotion to God and Christ for its sincerity and conviction. I believe, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I view those who believe in the absolute righteousness of their convictions as fanatics--whether they're Christians, Muslims, Communists, liberals, or even campus feminists. |
