Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Ovinomancer]

Let's see...

So, the Governor of Alabama is a Republican. The State Senate has 35 seats - of those, 26 are currently Republicans. The State House of Representatives has 72 Republicans and 33 Democrats. The GOP has pretty firm control of the state.

And, when they have a law on the books that one must present government ID to vote, they encounter budget issues this week that "force" them to close the offices that offer IDs.... predominantly in black communities. Two thirds of the historically black counties in the state will lack an office that issues driver's license, but only one third of other counties will lack them. No Alabama counties in which more than 75 percent of registered voters are nonwhite will have offices that will issue the IDs!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._black_belt_counties_passed_voter_id_law.html

You want to keep claiming it is just some isolated individuals, not institutional. The "individuals" are interestingly isolated, all together, in a group of 99, that just happen to be in the government. Care to explain that? Admittedly, not *all* 99 of them need to be racists, but it would seem they hold the majority to have this happen.

Or maybe you'd like to try your hand and explaining how what's going on is not a racist policy?

Hey, [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], I think you might want to hear this one. It should be good.

Nope, wouldn't for a second deny that looks like crap. Needs investigation, and, if badness is found, punishment. Alabama has a nasty streak inside it's party. I've never denied that there are racists or racist actions in the party, I've said that the party, as a whole, is not racist. Being a Republican does not make you racist or a member of a racist organization. Perhaps the keen eyed can note the difference.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It is true that being a racist is NOT a requirement of GOP membership.

However, over the past 50 years, the typical GOP politician- regardless of state- has increasingly favored policies that are demonstrably anti-minority, anti-poor, or otherwise favoring moneyed white Christians above all others. This is why those charges of being racist, etc. continue to dog the party.

And that stink increasingly finds itself shrouding the average GOP member because...well...they (as a group) voted for those politicians.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It is true that being a racist is NOT a requirement of GOP membership.

However, over the past 50 years, the typical GOP politician- regardless of state- has increasingly favored policies that are demonstrably anti-minority, anti-poor, or otherwise favoring moneyed white Christians above all others. This is why those charges of being racist, etc. continue to dog the party.

And that stink increasingly finds itself shrouding the average GOP member because...well...they (as a group) voted for those politicians.

Blanket generalizations are boring and unconvincing. If you have examples, argue them.

 

[Umbran]

Nope, wouldn't for a second deny that looks like crap. Needs investigation, and, if badness is found, punishment. Alabama has a nasty streak inside it's party. I've never denied that there are racists or racist actions in the party, I've said that the party, as a whole, is not racist. Being a Republican does not make you racist or a member of a racist organization. Perhaps the keen eyed can note the difference.

So, why aren't the rest of the party jumping up and down about what Alabama is doing? Why weren't they coming down on other states in past elections when they tired to institute discriminatory voter registration policies?

Consider, before your answer, that coming down on racism should have value to the GOP. They have a big problem courting minority voters - coming down on blatantly discriminatory policies should be a win for them. Unless, of course, doing so would lose them votes from their non-minority base. But, why would their non-minority voters care... unless they were racist?

Silence is tacit assent. Enough tacit assent is indistinguishable from agreement.

 

[Janx]

At some point, the thing becomes contaminated. Stigmatized.

Swastikas. Can't use them anymore.

Porch monkey. Can't take it back.

The current incarnation of the republican party favors a lot of anti-everybbody who aint white men stuff right now.

Its contaminated. Maybe the good folks who are in There need to leave or they need to stand up and say "no, that's a discriminatory idea!" To their peers

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, why aren't the rest of the party jumping up and down about what Alabama is doing? Why weren't they coming down on other states in past elections when they tired to institute discriminatory voter registration policies?

I couldn't say, but this is the same argument used by some against Muslims and it's ruled invalid there. Does a failure to actively and loudly proclaim disagreement render one a sympathizer? I think we'd all have a lot to answer for for that.

Consider, before your answer, that coming down on racism should have value to the GOP. They have a big problem courting minority voters - coming down on blatantly discriminatory policies should be a win for them. Unless, of course, doing so would lose them votes from their non-minority base. But, why would their non-minority voters care... unless they were racist?

It does, and they do. They haven't in this particular case, maybe because it's still early in its cycle, maybe because there's nothing like a full set of facts available, maybe because they haven't heard of it (I saw it just yesterday, for instance, and only because I'm involved in this argument in this thread). There are myriad possible legitimate reasons why this hasn't been commented on (or commented on in a forum where you'd see it) in the public yet.

Silence is tacit assent. Enough tacit assent is indistinguishable from agreement.

It's only tacit assent in a case where the issue is clearly pointed out to a person. Silence on issues that don't directly involve someone and/or aren't brought clearly to their attention is not -- it's just silence. This argument is used to smear people for failing to be aware, or failing to know that they have to make a clear, unambiguous statement specifically on that topic to avoid opprobrium. It's a lose-lose tactic. The Republican party has made public statements that they do not support racism. This doesn't help, but failure to specifically call this out doesn't mean the general statement is false. And the Republicans generally do make statements against racism, as evident in the recent events of the primary race where the comments of The Donald were repudiated by the other candidates and called racist.

But, if we go with the silence is assent, am I to assume you give assent to any bad thing that has occurred that you haven't specifically said you disapprove of? No, of course not, and I immediately withdraw and apologize for the insinuation. One can be assumed to disagree with actions one has said they disapprove of, or that are sufficiently outside normality that they don't require comment to assume disapproval, and silence in no way implies assent.

 

[MechaPilot]

Now, in fairness, not all GOP politicos favoring measures that are proven to suppress the vote are motivated by racial animus- see Bobby Jindahl- they're just aiming to suppress the vote in groups that historically would vote against the GOP. The effect, though, is functionally indistinguishable from bigotry, and under the legal "disparate impact" rules- as well as in many ethical systems- those policies should not be allowed to stand.

Even without racism being involved, that bolded part is reprehensible; it's an attack on one of the fundamental rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I couldn't say, but this is the same argument used by some against Muslims and it's ruled invalid there. Does a failure to actively and loudly proclaim disagreement render one a sympathizer? I think we'd all have a lot to answer for for that.

While it is the same argument form, there are key real-world differences between perceived silence by Muslims about their radicals and perceived silence by the GOP about theirs.

I have personally (on another board) listed a number of large demonstrations against radicalized Islam in NYC, Dallas, London and other major western cities by moderate & liberal Muslims that received almost no coverage in major news outlets. I even walked through one in Dallas. It got @5 minutes on the local news for 1 day.

Why?

Because, despite being one of the biggest faiths in the world, HERE, they are still the demonized strange cousins from the East. They control very little of what is said about them, or how, when and where it is said.

In contrast, the GOP is America's other major political party. American conservatives have a voice in almost every major media market, and in every media format, including their own cable news network. Last I checked, Fox was a ratings leader in that category. Furthermore, if it hits the conservative media outlets, it is sure to hit the mainstream & liberal ones in some way, shape or form.

IOW, as a practical matter, they can say whatever they want whenever they want, and that message will be heard.

 

[Sadras]

I'm not too big on punishements....Oh dear god! The humanity! Off to the labor camps with them!

This is the closest I could find in the space of 5 minutes...its Canadian Law which is probably exactly the same or at least extremely similar to Quebec's (I stand under correction).

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-430.html

Mischief in relation to cultural property

(4.2) Every one who commits mischief in relation to cultural property as defined in Article 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, done at The Hague on May 14, 1954, as set out in the schedule to the Cultural Property Export and Import Act,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

By comparison, my expulsion is rather tame. Enjoy your Labour Camps.

Let me rephrase. Proportionally, do they have less degrees?

I have no data, but If I had to hazard a guess, yes. Why don't you ask about the proportion of the number of voters? Are you really worried about a white president?

All humans have rights. No matter how you rationalize it, it is still exploitation. Slavery in another form... (snip)...No, it is just what it is. It is just framed differently because saying exploitation or slavery ain't acceptable anymore.

Let me get this straight you're worried about the criminals' rights (rapists and murderers) because of "supposed exploitation" I seek to impose yet you support governments like your own and other western powers in the MASS EXPLOITATION of clothing workers, farmers and miners in Africa, Bangladesh, India, Cambodia...and the like.

Liberals and Human Right activists will be the death of logic.

I think you should worry more about the change within and less about the blacks in South Africa. Do you know the real reason why apartheid had to go? Because the benefit of the exploitation of the black man only benefited the few white men in South Africa (the elite Afrikaners) and not the elite cronies in countries like USA, Canada and Northern Europe...now that South Africa is in inexperienced, short-sighted and corruptible black hands, Western policies for big business can inflict the kind of mass exploitation they have imposed on every other supposed developing country. Open your eyes.

No one is really calling out Israel for its Apartheid policies because there is no money to be made from the Palestinians and their land...and USA supports them fully whether it is a democrat or republican party in power...same butt, different cheek.

 

[Kramodlog]

Blanket generalizations are boring and unconvincing. If you have examples, argue them.

I have given you plenty of examples in this thread. And you agreed with some of them!

How will you move the goal post now?