Hi Larry,
Give credit where credit is due. President Johnson, a (D), was a very
skillful and productive politician, and please, don't lay a guilt trip
on him for destroying the black family. You guys are something else.
By the time you get through with you spins, good is bad and up is down.
weird.
Regards,
LelandJ
Larry Miller wrote:
>Poor Mr Jackson is not up on his history. LBJ would have gotten none of
>his civil rights legislation passed if it had been for Everett Dirksen,
>Senate Minority Leader at the time. Few Ds would follow Johnson, but Mr
>Dirksen brought in the majority of the Rs to make it happen.
>
>The legislation, BTW, was actually a hold over from the Kennedy admin.
>JFK could not work with congress the way his successor did. Oh yes, the
>Kennedy plan was identical to the one Ike proposed in the late fifties
>but was shot down by a congress controlled by Ds.
>
>One more thing... the 'Great Scam' welfare plan of LBJ literally
>destroyed the black family structure. To be fair, that was not the
>intent, but an unexpected (to the Ds) consequence.
>
>Oh yes... and gays are not blacks.
>
>Larry Miller
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Leland Jackson [mailto:lelandj /at/ mail .DO.T smvfp.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:17 AM
>To: ProFox Email List
>Subject: Re: [OT] A Blow to the Rule of Law
>
>Hi Michael,
>
>It was President Lyndon Johnson's great society that brought the moral
>campuss around to the issues of discrimination in America. Also, people
>like Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesse Jackson, and many, many other people
>
>who had a good moral conscience, peacefully protested the shameful
>treatment of minorities in the South, putting the spot light on the lack
>
>of equal treatment of all American which was a violation of our beloved
>constitution.
>
>It is the Bush Administration and the Religious Righter that are now
>trying to turn back the clock to the old order of things, reversing on
>all the hard won progress of the 60s and the 70s with constitutional
>amendments that would deprive certain classes of citizens equal
>treatment. Religion has alway been associated with saving souls, help
>the poor, providing spiritual guidance and support. When did it change
>into a political active movement that would kick Gays around and
>encourage the Bush Administration of not hire Gays? Why would the
>Religious Right encourage the Bush Administration not to hire Gays?
>Religion has gone seriously astray to the point of being crazy, and at
>this point nothing else would surprise me.
>
>Regards,
>
>LelandJ
>
>
>
>Michael Madigan wrote:
>
>
>
>>It was these same christians who got Blacks civil rights in the 60s.
>>
>>
>>--- Leland Jackson <lelandj@mail.smvfp.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi Larry,
>>>
>>>
>>>John C. Danforth, a former Republican United States senator form
>>>Missouri and Episcopal minister get it. Maybe you should take a
>>>closer look.
>>>
>>>#----------------------------------------------------
>>>In the Name of Politics
>>>
>>>By John C. Danforth
>>>Published: March 30, 2005
>>>
>>>St. Louis - BY a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have
>>>transformed our party into the political arm of conservative
>>>Christians.
>>>The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a
>>>constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell
>>>
>>>research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri
>>>dishes,
>>>and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a
>>>feeding tube.
>>>
>>>Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within
>>>the
>>>Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand
>>>alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of
>>>positions
>>>common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the
>>>Republican Party.
>>>
>>>Christian activists, eager to take credit for recent electoral
>>>successes, would not be likely to concede that Republican adoption of
>>>
>>>their political agenda is merely the natural convergence of
>>>conservative
>>>religious and political values. Correctly, they would see a causal
>>>relationship between the activism of the churches and the
>>>responsiveness
>>>of Republican politicians. In turn, pragmatic Republicans would agree
>>>
>>>that motivating Christian conservatives has contributed to their
>>>successes.
>>>
>>>High-profile Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo,
>>>including departures from Republican principles like approving
>>>Congressional involvement in private decisions and empowering a
>>>federal
>>>court to overrule a state court, can rightfully be interpreted as
>>>yielding to the pressure of religious power blocs.
>>>
>>>In my state, Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have
>>>advanced
>>>legislation to criminalize even stem cell research in which the cells
>>>
>>>are artificially produced in petri dishes and will never be
>>>transplanted
>>>into the human uterus. They argue that such cells are human life that
>>>
>>>must be protected, by threat of criminal prosecution, from promising
>>>research on diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and juvenile
>>>diabetes.
>>>
>>>It is not evident to many of us that cells in a petri dish are
>>>equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible diseases. I
>>>am
>>>and have always been pro-life. But the only explanation for
>>>legislators
>>>comparing cells in a petri dish to babies in the womb is the
>>>extension
>>>of religious doctrine into statutory law.
>>>
>>>I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses
>>>confronted the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God's call to
>>>political involvement. Nor has political action been unique to
>>>conservative Christians. Religious liberals have been politically
>>>active
>>>in support of gay rights and against nuclear weapons and the death
>>>penalty. In America, everyone has the right to try to influence
>>>political issues, regardless of his religious motivations.
>>>
>>>The problem is not with people or churches that are politically
>>>active.
>>>It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian
>>>agenda
>>>that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.
>>>
>>>When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious
>>>program,
>>>it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in
>>>the
>>>absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist
>>>identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to
>>>
>>>advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and
>>>those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very
>>>diverse
>>>country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in
>>>practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the
>>>cause
>>>of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.
>>>
>>>Take stem cell research. Criminalizing the work of scientists doing
>>>such
>>>research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it
>>>would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use
>>>science to heal the sick.
>>>
>>>During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often
>>>disagreed
>>>with each other. But there was much that held us together. We
>>>believed
>>>in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and
>>>regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy
>>>might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not
>>>legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign
>>>
>>>policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were
>>>principles
>>>shared by virtually all Republicans.
>>>
>>>But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda
>>>to
>>>become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a
>>>senator,
>>>I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not
>>>spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the
>>>institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.
>>>
>>>The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its
>>>best
>>>hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a
>>>religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for
>>>
>>>Republicans to rediscover our roots.
>>>
>>>John C. Danforth, a former Republican United States senator form
>>>Missouri, resigned in Janaury as United States ambassador to the
>>>United
>>>Nations. He is an Episcopal minister.
>>>
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html?th&emc=t
>>>
>>>#------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>LelandJ
>>>
>>>
>>>Larry Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You know... I hear this all the time... but what personal freedoms
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>do
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>you think will be restricted... other than, perhaps, the ability to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>kill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>a baby.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2005 Leland Jackson |
|
