Key fact your forgeting in your argument DB, is that issues of who's the minority and who's the majority are irrelevant to issues of opression. Many a revolt and revolution throughout history in several countries have been the result of a minority opressing a majority. I think America was developed over such a result.

The issue SJ is noting is that politcal figures and media seem to bend over backwards to appease Muslims and to not offend notable groups who are dedicated to our society's destruction and attacks with frequency. But when an extremely rare occurance (wonder why it's so rare?) happens involving a supposed Christian believer, there's barely a peep or at best it's half-hearted.

And as more and more of our freedoms are being removed or violated by the minority influence of secularists, it's an issue worth noting.

i think saying that issue is "irrelevant" is at a minimum drastically overstating things.  i am struggling to think of any historical instance of a religious or cultural majority being oppressed by a minority, except in cases where there was a massive disparity of technological advantage to the minority (in colonial times, for example).  Can you give me any other examples?

Do I need to? It's a clear example where the issue of who is the majority is not relevant to who is under oppression. So ythe crux of your argument is basicly meaningless. And I would say technological disparity is another issue that's irrelevant (and it's not like the citizenry has access to all the military tech of the government, does it?). The issue is a matter of legality and government. An area where the minority held power in colonial times, and where the minority holds considerable power now, and is always attempting to gain more.

  Do you mean the pilgrims experience in England, or them and their descendants' treatment of the Native American population?  Because in the former case, if they were indeed oppressed, then they were a religious minority in England (which doesn't help your point), and in the latter case there was the technological disparity that i mentioned.  Are you suggesting that liberals and Muslims have an overwhelming technological advantage over conservative Christians?  If not, what are you suggesting?

The only one harping about technology is you.

Actually in America's case it was because the greater and growing population wouldn't stand to be oppressed by a single king and a few government officials 300 miles away involving equal parts religious, economic, and political matters. I was also thinking along the lines of French revolution where the feudal system was in place and the small nobility had greater or equal power to the larger populace for quite awhile. Since the nobility was exempt from taxes to let the larger massess be bled dry, I'd say that's a clear example where a minority oppresses a majority.

This is what you notice, and that is not surprising given that it confirms everything you already think.  A Muslim might notice a different pattern.  For example, did you read the comments on the link i gave Tony to the freerepublic site?  Ten times worse (in terms of collective punishment advocated) than the general response that you bitterly complained about to George Tiller's murder.

And you don't notice, and that is not surprising since it's being done to a group you ideologically oppose.

And I'd like you to point out where anyone denied there's bad feelings towards Muslims amoungst the populace? I've seen some pretty hateful rhetoric from atheists against ALL religious groups. That's the magic of the internet. I believe the criticism was being directed mainly at the government and mainstream media which are two totally different animals. Because those are areas where the minority can hold sway.

Again, i think that the avoidance of stereotyping and tarring everyone in a particular cultural group with the brush of its most extreme members is a good thing in all cases.  You are not Scott Roeder, James von Brunn, Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Paul Jennings Hill, Anders Breivik or any other white male who has committed murder because of a right-wing or Christian ideology, and nor do you bear any responsibility for their crimes.  In much the same way, the vast majority of Muslims (who in the above quote you conflate with "groups which are dedicated to our society's destruction") bear no responsibility for al qaeda.  If there are elements of a particular belief system which predispose people towards either committing or supporting acts of violence then i think it's appropriate to examine those beliefs, but that does not justify the kind of collective responsibility which you (ironically) simultaneously apply to Muslims while complaining about it being applied to yourself.  As always, your lack of self-awareness is impressive.

I think you are the one conflating "notable groups" into "vast majority of Muslims". Though admittedly, I wouldn't see much of a contradiction depending on which region of the world you're talking about.

The key difference being what the authoritive canon for each respective belief ACTUALLY says on such matters. I know from your talks with SJ, you actively resist the notion that the most violent parts of Christianity's history faded away because more people could read the Bible to discover what it actually says, and found such behaviour contrary to it's message (and you weakly cry "Interpretation!"). But get to Muslims where the Quoran has a pretty explicit and unambiguous message supporting such acts by the "most extreme members", and here we see you calling for the avoidance of sterotyping.

It's THAT contradiction in attitude SJ's talking about in regards to those directing and influencing the country.

And as more and more of our freedoms are being removed or violated by the minority influence of secularists, it's an issue worth noting.

For example?

The systematic removal of people's ability to express there religion in public and government controlled areas seems to be the most prominent. So prominent it's odd you even need an example, though that may be due to the fact that you're British. Though I believe there was a UK court ruling that denied an adoption based on Christianity's belief regarding homosexuality, and the ruling explicitly discriminated them because of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896

So there's an example right in your own back yard.

EB,

i get that you feel oppressed by your government, but you are not representative of the majority of Americans, however much you might wish to appropriate their support.  A majority of the American population supports gay marriage, and feels that abortion should be legal in at least some situations.  You may feel that your minority views are not well represented by the government, but that is an unfortunate feature of democracy - we don't all get to be in charge.  There are issues on which i wish that my own government took a different position, but that doesn't make me oppressed.

"This is what you notice, and that is not surprising given that it confirms everything you already think."

And you don't notice, and that is not surprising since it's being done to a group you ideologically oppose.

i am not claiming to be entirely impartial, only pointing out that you are not.  And i don't oppose Christians or Muslims as a group.  i disagree with some of their beliefs, and object to those beliefs being enshrined in public policy where harm can be shown to be caused as a result.

I know from your talks with SJ, you actively resist the notion that the most violent parts of Christianity's history faded away because more people could read the Bible to discover what it actually says, and found such behaviour contrary to it's message (and you weakly cry "Interpretation!"). But get to Muslims where the Quoran has a pretty explicit and unambiguous message supporting such acts by the "most extreme members", and here we see you calling for the avoidance of sterotyping.

If you read what i said, i advocated the avoidance of stereotyping in all cases, so i think this is an instance of your stock atheist rebuttal missing the mark.  And the major difference that i see between Islam and Christianity in this regard is that Islam has not gone through the same collision with modernity that Christianity has during the Enlightenment.  As i pointed out to SJ, Christians have had fairly free access to bibles in their own language since the early 1700s, and have still managed to do some pretty awful things in the name of Christ since then.  But an incremental and welcome change has occured in Western society, for numerous reasons, in the direction of individual rights - and many religious people have led the way.  This has not been the case as yet in Islamic society, although scholars like Reza Aslan argue that the Islamic Reformation is happening as we speak.  i hope that he is right about that, because it's hard to see how any external force can bring change to the Muslim world.

Anyway, there is little difference between the overall ethical tone of the Quran and the Old Testament in terms of the bloodshed that can be justified by a literal reading.  The main difference from the point of view of real world outcomes is that most Western Christians no longer consider the OT relevant to their day to day lives.

The systematic removal of people's ability to express there religion in public and government controlled areas seems to be the most prominent. So prominent it's odd you even need an example, though that may be due to the fact that you're British.

Possibly.  i rather thought there was something in your constitution that supported this kind of separation, but that could be just my Britishness talking again.

Though I believe there was a UK court ruling that denied an adoption based on Christianity's belief regarding homosexuality, and the ruling explicitly discriminated them because of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896

So there's an example right in your own back yard.

i thought we might disagree on a point like this.  If you interpret "freedom" as including the freedom to discriminate against others, then you are always likely to clash with society.  This ruling stems from an acknowledgement of the fact that homosexuality is not a choice, and that children benefit from not being taught that it is a terrible sin.  In choosing in whose care to place already vulnerable children, an outspoken attitude of condemnation towards a trait which those children might or might not display does seem relevant to me, and i would agree that it would be better to place those children elsewhere.  While this couple interpret the ruling as discrimination, it is no more controversial to me than refusing foster carer status to a couple who felt that left-handedness was morally deviant.  People like them (and you, incidentally) are just on the wrong side of history.


Tony,

I stand by my observation that one is warned away from 'jumping to conclusions' on this side of the pond whenever it isn't a Christian involved.  When a Christian is involved, you're welcome to do as you please.  Case in point, the guy who shot Dr. Tiller.  Initially, the guy who shot our congressman was rung up as a Christian right-winger until we found out he was more of a left-winger, and then the matter was dropped in our media.  I'm happy to acknowledge the guy was a large part nuts, but this isn't an observation about the nuts, but about those bringing us the news about the nuts.

i am not claiming that there is no imbalance in media reporting.  Minority groups often receive a certain amount of shelter from criticism in the media, which is done out of fear of being labelled intolerant but really doesn't help very much.  Both muslims and jews get coddled in this way to some extent, and quite legitimate criticism of Islamic regimes or cultural practices is greeted with shouts of "islamiphobia!" (or, in the case of criticism of Israeli foreign policy, "Anti-semitism!").  This is not helpful to public discourse, although i understand the reasons why it occurs (and this is where i think we will differ).  It occurs because of concern about contributing to the persecution of minority groups, which is a real phenomenon, rather than a specific desire to persecute Christians, as you seem to suggest.

White male Christians are an overwhelmingly disproportionately priveliged group in American society, and while i kind of get how you might feel that the lack of cultural sensitivity in these kind of media reports is unfair, it really doesn't even begin to redress the massive imbalance that still exists in society.

As for Christians and oppression in general, I have a different perspective on that.  For one thing, I think globally, not merely locally.  I keep abreast of Christian persecution around the globe.  When I see trends overseas that resemble trends beginning or deepening here, I don't feel I am out of line in pointing them out.

There are a lot of parts of the world in which Christians are a minority, and a persecuted one at that.  But that doesn't have any implications that i can see for an alleged persecution of Christians where they are in a powerful majority.  Muslims are persecuted in India by the Hindu majority, but that doesn't say anything about their status or relative deprivation as a group in Sudan, where they are in the majority and control the government.  If a presidential candidate in the US were to so much as openly doubt that there could be a creator God, as envisaged by Christians, who listens to the prayers of his constituents, then he would never ever get elected.  That to me illustrates the grip that Christians still have on the democratic process in the US, and suggests that your narrative of Christian oppression is a symptom of a victimhood complex rather than of the way things really are in the world.   

It was Richard Dawkins who recently conceded that Christianity in the west may have served a higher purpose than he originally believed.  For all its 'faults' it kept out something really pernicious, the encroachment of Islam.  For how many years did I read that man's writings lumping Islam with Christianity in the generic 'dangers of religion' category?  But as Christianity fades in the UK and Islam rises, his tune has changed.  It's worth noting.

Islam being more of a clear and present danger to society at the moment does not make the bad parts of Christian history any less bad, or the metaphysical beliefs of Christians any more justifiable, or the potential damage that fundamentalist Christianity can do to the minds of adults and especially children any less severe and worthy of condemnation.  As you noted, Christianity in the UK is mostly non-fundamentalist and not a threat to the values of our secular society, although there are some exceptions.  An increased focus on Islam seems appropriate.

EB,

And now we see some back-pedalling.

When did that happen?  i still disagree with you that considerations of who is in the majority are irrelevant to issues of oppression as you suggest.  However, you are focusing primarily on the US government (democratically elected, by the way, so i think you are confusing oppression with losing), so it seemed to make more sense to concentrate on that.  But feel free to make as many unsubstantiated bicycle-related slurs as you wish.

When a majority view follows the law I'll readily accept it even if I personally don't like it. Instances where I'm referring to is where the law is either usurped or explicitly violated.

What does that have to do with the media's treatment of Christian fundamentalists?  But i'm glad to hear that you will accept gay marriage when the majority of Americans who approve of it make it legal.

And given your gay marriage poll was exclusively to independants, I wouldn't say that's really "the majority of Americans".

You are mistaken.  You should probably read the link more carefully - "For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. The increase since last year came exclusively among political independents and Democrats. Republicans' views did not change".  That is saying that the swing had taken place among independents and democrats, but that the result was an overall majority of Americans supporting gay marriage.  Now bear in mind that this is just one poll, but the trend displayed in the Gallup link is unmistakable, and likely to accelerate, since the section of the population who most reliably oppose gay marriage (i.e. the older generation) are gradually being replaced by the section who most reliably support it (i.e. our generation).  You may be tested on your commitment to democratic principles sooner than you think.

But I understand you don't really care about how things are done so long as it's your beliefs that come out on top. Problem being that it can only go so far till there are policies you don't agree with, then you won't have a leg to stand on.

And i understand that it is your disagreeable habit to throw around unjustified ad hominems when you're on shaky ground.

And objecting to those beliefs is called opposing a group who adhere to them.

   i guess that means that i "oppose" my wife, since i don't share her Christian beliefs?  That's just foolish.

You advocate [the avoidance of stereotyping]. That doesn't mean you really avoid it given the many times you've thrown out comments of Christians/right-wingers in authority looking to trigger armageddon.  It's just an instance where previous arguments come back to haunt you.

In case you're unclear, as you do seem to be, there is a major difference between stereotyping a whole group based on the actions of a few of its members and discussing the outcomes of an individual's stated beliefs.  i certainly don't want any fundamentalist pre-millenialists to have the power to trigger a global war, whether they are Christians or Muslims, because the consequences of those beliefs could make them more likely to think it a good idea.  i'm pretty sure i haven't ever generalised that to "Christians" or "Right-wingers" as you suggest, but feel free to show me up by finding a quote and i promise to be "haunted" by it.  Not feeling too haunted yet though.

I think some of your "horrible" instances weren't either so "horrible" or actually in accordance with Christ

i'd be interested to know which of my examples you think were not "horrible".  Really.  And whether or not you think they were in accordance with Christ is irrelevant, because we're discussing SJ's contention that being able to read the Bible in ones own language has a beneficial effect on the number of people who do bad things in its name - not in your interpretation of it.

There's a huge difference when the Quran basicly commands to 'eliminate all infidels', and the Old Testament gives isolated incidences between a nation with a direct pact with God and specific hostile forces that weren't so innocent. That you can't see a difference is due largely to your admittedly nonimpartiality, and a willful ignorance.

The Old Testament contains accounts of the destruction of entire cities of people, specifically including babies and children (not so innocent?), with God's explicit approval.  If you are able to mentally accommodate that with your conception of a loving God then i am sure that a non-homicidally-minded Muslim can come up with justifications for the bloodthirsty bits of the Quran.  The one i have heard most often is that those verses relate to the early years when Mohammad and his followers were persecuted and constantly under attack.  Kind of similar to your post hoc mental contortions really.

I brought that example up to show a clear case of discrimination against a fundamental religious belief that simply disagrees with the established power. So don't pretend it's not happening. It's obvious from this you don't actually mind the freedom to discriminate when YOU are on the side of those discriminating.

   You are an incredible hypocrite.  You, and anyone else, are welcome to believe whatever you want to about gay people, but what you are not welcome to do is to discriminate against them on the basis of those beliefs and call it your "right".  You are also free to hold racist beliefs, by the way, but you will notice that you can't hang a sign in a business you're running that says "no blacks need apply" anymore either.  Society preventing you from acting on your beliefs in this way is not discrimination against you, it is preventing you from discriminating against an already oppressed group (and that's genuinely oppressed, by the way, not your straight-white-christian-male bull$h!t victimhood mythology).  You don't have to like them, don't have to be friends with them, but you do have to treat them equally and in accordance with their human rights if you aspire to hold any kind of responsible position in society.

The same applies to anyone who has negative views of white Christians, incidentally.  They can think what they like, but they really can't discriminate against you based on your religion or race.  You may say that there's a double standard in how these different sorts of cases are enforced, and you may be right about that, but you know what - pretty much the whole of history so far has been a double standard for black and gay people, so get the h£ll over it.

It's pretty clear that your concerns about oppression are strictly limited to your own cultural group.  Cry me a river.

Perhaps next time the courts will rule in favor of pedophilia being freely practiced and children adopted to adherents 'who are born that way'. You disagree? Well you'll simply be "on the wrong side of history", and have no one to blame but yourself for getting to that point.

Seems pretty unlikely since molesting children is illegal, non-consensual and demonstrably harmful, none of which is the case with homosexuality.  So your slippery-slope argument fails as usual.

By the way, i know exactly what you're going to say here - "homosexuality is demonstrably harmful".  We've been through this, and all the biased, misrepresented and misinterpreted studies that you could google entirely failed to support your point.  There are sexual behaviours, which are practiced by some homosexuals and some heterosexuals, which are harmful.  That does not support your point.  And i find it to be the most sickening irony of all when anti-gay writers cite the higher documented rates of suicide and self-harm in the gay community, caused in large part by low self-esteem from homophobic bullying that those very writers help to proliferate, in order to bolster their own regressive polemics.  Happily, the Gallup poll is just one of the signs that in another generation attitudes like yours will be consigned to the scrapheap of bad ideas.

Like Martin Niemöller said, they didn't start with the Jews - First they came for the communists....

Yeah.  He didn't mention that they also came for the gays.  Repressive regimes down the ages usually have - and that's what you align yourself with while you tacitly support discrimination against homosexuals at the same time as whining about your own victimisation by the liberal media.

Joe,

Good to see you here. Hope you're feeling better than you were - you seem to be your usual mixture of funny and insightful, so I hope that's a good sign.  I don't have time to respond to everything you said here, but briefly:

That word "feudal." I don't think it means what you think it means.

Is it wrong that I imagine you saying this in an Inigo Montoya voice?

Re: parents teaching their children to hate gay people.

I think we have to draw a line between what a parent can be allowed to do and what the state can be allowed to do.  If a child is in foster care then they are essentially a ward of the state, and we have a responsibility to make sure that the people who parent those children on behalf of the state are doing a good job of it.  So those foster carers, in my opinion, do not have the right to teach children that gay people are evil or inherently sinful anymore than public school teachers (who are welcome to believe those things so long as they don't express them) should be able to.  Parents clearly are a different kettle of fish, because while those same messages are just as harmful coming from a mother or a father, we have to balance that harm against the harm of separating a family.  The line must be drawn somewhere, and generally we draw it at physical or sexual abuse.  There are no perfect answers to some situations, but in the case of a child fostered by the state I think we have the right to be just as picky as we would be with teachers.

I don't think that this is a case of people being discriminated against for their beliefs, as EB suggests.  This couple could have believed anything they liked and if they'd kept it to themselves no one would have known anything about it.

Re: racial discrimination

I don't think that the black ex-civil rights guy should have the right to discriminate against whites, no.  However, we would be fooling ourselves if we even entertained the thought that the vast majority of racial discrimination doesn't flow in precisely the opposite direction.  And yet to hear some people talk you would think that White people are the last group that it is acceptable to discriminate against.  When studies show that people with White-sounding names are significantly more likely to get called back for job interviews than applicants with precisely the same qualifications and Black-sounding names.  When a young Black man in America is statistically more likely to be in jail than in college.  When inequalities in healthcare provision leads to tens if not hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths of African Americans and other ethnic minorities every year.  And when the mere mention of any of these symptoms of racism in society is dismissed by most as "playing the race card", I could actually understand the guy in your thought experiment saying "no whites allowed".  But I'm not suggesting that we allow that sort of thing, only that if more attention is given to racism against non-whites than racism against whites in the Western world then that is both fair and proportionate to the relative scale of the problem.

I don't see how our pasts, whatever they are, justify our wrong actions, regardless of our standing in the various majority or minority groups in society.

I agree that our pasts do not justify bad behaviour, but they should also not be ignored or dismissed.  This idea of a "post-racial society" just white-washes the past and shuts down important discussion about the inequalities in healthcare, job opportunities and law enforcement which still exist because our society is still institutionally racist, much though we who are classified as White might wish to pretend that it isn't.  And if we can't talk about them then we can't fix them.

Or were you just frustrated with EB?

Intensely and continually, but that's not the reason why I said what I said, only the way I said it.

Take care buddy
Dan

Danny:

First and foremost … stay safe. We had a (by comparison) mini-riot back in '01. I was at a Cincinnati Reds baseball game the night it started. I'd had a few too many beers at the game, wandered down the wrong street and ended up in a place I should not have been. The riot was mostly about race. Most of the rioters were black. I was white (still am, actually!). Trying to work your way out of a riot is never easy, but trying to do that when you're drunk and tend to stick out like a sore thumb is just ridiculous. So, if I can offer any advice, don't do what I did.

Seriously, though. Stay safe. And keep that baseball bat handy at all times. Even when you're not facing down rioters, it doubles as a negotiation-enhancement device in business meetings.

Good to see you here. Hope you're feeling better than you were - you seem to be your usual mixture of funny and insightful, so I hope that's a good sign

I'm doing well. Not 100%, but these things take time, I hear. Luckily, the doctor prescribed a mountain of pain pills and valium so I'm set for a while. I could become an addict if I wanted to, but that sounds exhausting.

Is it wrong that I imagine you saying this in an Inigo Montoya voice?
Not at all. Jen bought me this for Christmas. I wear it to conventions. It confuses the (*heck*) out of everyone.

Re: parents teaching their children to hate gay people.

I get what you're saying. The state is responsible for these kids (until someone adopts them, of course) so the state gets to decide the criteria by which they judge potential caregivers. I can agree with that, even if I disagree with the criteria.

Maybe I need to read more about the issue, because at first blush my thoughts are that the state isn't exactly discriminating and that calling the couple's approach "hate" is a bit strong. Both the state and the couple appear to want to help foster kids find happy homes and that's to be commended, despite disagreements about sexuality.

I think it's also worth noting that the only interview question we know about was "would you tell a small child that a homosexual relationship is okay" (or something to that effect). The spectrum of potential answers could have ranged from "No. Gay people are sick and will burn in hell for their lasciviousness!" to "My wife/husband and I disagree with it and we plan to teach our children accordingly" to "We prefer to let our kids make up their own minds. Except with Lady Gaga. We disdain cheap, Madonna rip-offs" to "My wife/husband and I are both each other's beards. So yes…it's okay with us!"

I could be wrong, but my guess is there was more to the questioning than what was presented in the article. I find it hard to believe the state would deny an otherwise exemplary foster home on the basis of that one question.

Had I been asked the question, I would have said. "No. I don't plan to discuss issues of sexuality – at least, issues as complicated as homosexuality versus heterosexuality - with ‘small children.' By the time my kids are old enough to discuss it, I plan to tell them what I believe, ask them what they believe, and allow them to think for themselves. If one of my kids is gay, I will love him. He will still be a major part of my life."

Then I will say, "If either of my sons ends up a Yankees fan, he's off to military school. That just goes without saying. Everyone knows that."


  Re: racial discrimination..
However, we would be fooling ourselves if we even entertained the thought that the vast majority of racial discrimination doesn't flow in precisely the opposite direction.

Right. That's what I meant by the little girl slapping Hulk Hogan comment.

And when the mere mention of any of these symptoms of racism in society is dismissed by most as "playing the race card"

I wouldn't say "most." I would say "loudest" and "most idiotic."

"Far too many," yes. "Most," no. I have no data to back this up. It's just my perspective.

I agree that our pasts do not justify bad behaviour, but they should also not be ignored or dismissed.  This idea of a "post-racial society" just white-washes the past and shuts down important discussion about the inequalities in healthcare, job opportunities and law enforcement which still exist because our society is still institutionally racist, much though we who are classified as White might wish to pretend that it isn't.  And if we can't talk about them then we can't fix them.

I used to work with a young woman named Suzanne. You'd like her. She used to say things like "I'm not a militant feminist even though I am a feminist, and I am militant." Suzanne used to go running in and around the neighborhood where we went to school. One day, she was out running and this guy comes up next to her. They chatted for a while, which was a common thing for college kids to do.

After a half mile or so of jogging, the guy – a large, white man – casually says, "So what's a nigger like you doing out this late, anyway?" He was immediately joined by two other large, white men. Suzanne ran faster, but they kept pace, shouting insults and epithets. One of them put a hand on her.

This story could have ended badly. For most women, it would have. But these guys didn't know Suzanne. The first day I met Suzanne, she said she had taken "a few" martial arts classes.

"What kind?" I said.

"This kind," she said, and before I knew it was on the ground with her knee in my face. Suzanne is just a hair over five feet tall and maybe 100 pounds soaking wet. I am three times her size.

"A few, huh?" I said.

So the guy puts his hand on her and, as was the case with me, all three of them were immediately taken down; only this time with extra attention (and pain) paid to the area between their legs. Before they had time to groan, she was off and running. They had no hope of catching her. Aside from being an accomplished martial artist, Suzanne is also a marathon runner.

I told you you'd like her.

I agree with you. The idea of a post-racial society is laughable. The things you mentioned – inequalities in healthcare, employment, law enforcement, etc – I completely agree with. That's the main thing. That's the most important thing. That should be first and foremost on our radar.

But there's more to the story than that.

Suzanne started dating this guy that worked with us. His name was Mike. Mike is a dumpy white guy. He's incredibly smart (currently working on his second PhD) but when you first meet him, you expect him to hand you a joint, pull out a bag of potato chips and start talking about Burning Man. It was a strange relationship, but they worked well together.

Suzanne took Mike home for Christmas and it didn't go well. Her family was polite, but they disapproved of her dating anyone that wasn't black. They didn't hate white people, they told her. They just don't want to see her mixed in with one of them. "Think of the kids you'd have," they told her. These were the same people who whispered insults of "Uncle Tom" when Suzanne took her high school valedictorian award and went off to college; the same people who said she was "acting white" when she was accepted for a masters program; the same people who washed their hands of her when she moved to Australia to study for a PhD in Zoology.

You see this kind of thing all over the place. A Vietnamese friend of mine got pregnant right out of high school and her family was more upset that the father was a white man than they were that she had to drop out of school, live at home and work at WalMart to raise her daughter. My high school had a large Jewish population and a whole bunch of my friends had pressure to marry "a good Jewish boy/girl." My sister dated a black man when she was in college and though my parents never said anything to her about it, the idea never sat well with them. The guy she dated was a basketball player. He's in the N.B.A. now, making millions. She totally missed out.

When my old roommate got married, his wife's grandma asked him what nationality he is. "German and Irish," he said.

"Oh good," she said. "I was worried you were maybe Greek or Italian because of how you look. I thought maybe you were a mullato. But that's okay. You're good stock."

I understand why this woman (and my parents and my grandparents and a lot of the older generations from where I grew up) are the way they are. When my parent's generation was young, "separate but equal" was the norm. When my grandparents were kids, black people were something less than human.

The world changed around them and it's a hard thing to accept. I understand that.

I understand it, but I don't excuse it. I don't think that understanding someone's past gives us reason to excuse their current actions if those actions are wrong.

I get the differences. Any discrimination white people experience isn't in same ballpark as other groups. To quote Samuel L. Jackson from Pulp Fiction, "It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same ****** sport."  If I am denied a job because I'm white (which, to my knowledge, has never happened), I can most likely walk next door and get a better job whereas a black guy is much more likely to get denied again and again. He might even be arrested on the way to the job interview for a BBIP violation (BBIP = Being Black In Public).

Discrimination does exist, though. It exists in every group, in every race, with all people, everywhere. Its only when one group of people gets power over another that there's the potential for systemic oppression.

Shawn was the best man at my wedding. He has a 5 year old son named Brandon. For a few years, Shawn and his wife left Brandon with his grandma while the two of them worked. One day, Brandon came home, complaining about the boy who lived next door. This kid apparently got on Brandon's nerves.

"That's just what those people are like," Brandon said.

"What do you mean … ‘those people?'" Shawn said.

Brandon meant to disparage all people of the same color as the boy who lived next door to his grandma. Shawn and his wife have had several serious conversations with their son, who is now in first grade, but he insists that ‘those people' are still all bad. Because his grandma said so.

Does it really matter what color Shawn's family is?

Take care buddy

You too, man.

EB:  But in the end you do believe your wife doesn't believe in what's true and oppose her in sharing that belief as true with others.
To oppose something is to actively fight against it. To take a stand against a particular action or system, for example. So, if Danny really does oppose his wife sharing her beliefs with others, that means he does his level best to stop her from speaking her mind. I doubt that happens.

But, if it does, I feel sorry for what I can only assume is the extreme lack of (cough) "quality time" he has with his wife. As well as a stiff back from all those nights spent sleeping on the couch.

you silly, immaculate man
Why is being clean a bad thing?

Piece,
Joe

This has actually happened to me.
I remember you talking about that. At least, I think I remember you talking about that. When I said it hadn't happened, to my knowledge, I meant that it hadn't happened to me.

One question. When that happened, was it that the people they hired weren't at all qualified for the job? Or was it that they weren't as qualified as you?

If something is wrong, its wrong, and it does no good to say, "Oh, well, it was only wrong if you white male Christians did it.  We can do it all day long!"

Yep.

I'd say what he does on this forum falls within "actively fight against it" and "take a stand against it".
Against what? His wife?

Against Christians. Try reading the whole thread to see where this issue started.