# America divided



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Have you noticed over the last few years that this nation has become more divided. I'm not surprised, after all we don't celebrate unity like our ancestors did, we celebrate diversity. Diversity in itself is an ok thing, but not something to encourage or celebrate. It's just a fact of life that we should be thankful for, but we should celebrate that we are all Americans, not Africans, Europeans, Mexicans, but Americans.

So that brings me to what you guys think of the next election. I see Oprah is having a bash for Obama. Will she vote for him simply because he is black (more division)? Will others vote against him because he is black (more division)? Will women vote for Hillary just because she is a woman (more division)? Will men vote against Hillary because she is a woman (more division)? Will women vote against Hillary, will men vote for Hillary ??????????????

It would appear to me that the diversity celebrators are dividing this nation to the point we vote for "our side" rather than voting for who is best. Is there anyone running yet worth voting for? Ho- hum, yawn. Who got us into this mess?


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

big business promotes and demands diversity in the work place. it simply is a requirement/condition of employment in most big corps.

yes, many women will vote for Hillary, simply because she is a woman and she now has a chance to fill "Bill's pants"!

define diversity: NAACP sez we need to help rehabilitate Mr. Vick and after he serves his time, we need to bring him back and let him entertain us as a professional football player, once again. they also say Mr. Imus can NOT be rehabilitated and he must NOT be allowed back on the radio!

yep, that's diversity alright! uke:


----------



## neb_bo (Feb 3, 2007)

> Who got us into this mess?


abe lincoln?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

No doubt, Barack Obama is black. However, if anybody has listened to him, you will know that his message is about unity, not division.

Barack's message is a good one. It centers on the fact that we have a diversity of ideas, philosophies, religions, and cultures in this country, but that there is strength in that unity. However, that strength only exists if people respect and honor that diversity.

Remember his speech at the 2005 Democratic National Convention? He stressed that while many try to divide the U.S. into red states and blue states, we don't have a "liberal America" or a "conservative America".... we have the United States of America.

This is truly Obama's appeal to many Americans. He delivers a message of hope and optimism. I'm not going to vote for him because he is black. I'm going to vote for him because he is intelligent, optimistic, and able to motivate people to make tomorrow better than today is.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bigdaddy if he means what he says he is an admirable man. I yet have not learned to trust any politician. Perhaps some of his personal views do parallel mine, but his political do not. I may wish him the best in his personal life, and at the same time hope he does not make president.

My point about diversity is we have carried celebrating it so far that it divides us, and some politician play upon that fact. We should all be American first and European, Mexican, or African second. In no way do I mean we should not all be proud of our heritage, it just shouldn't come above all else.

If you're a federal employee as I was you know that often when you go to a one day meeting that at times half the meeting is diversity training. Anyone with half a brain should appreciate the diversity we have in America and respect all other people. You either believe that or you don't and all the training in the world will not change it. I found diversity training to be a waste of time and American tax payer money, not to mention offensive. It was offensive because people thought anyone needed to be taught appreciation of diversity.

If you're a legal American living anywhere in the United States I will treat you as a neighbor, but don't tell me that France, South Africa, Mexico, or anywhere else is better than the United States, and especially don't tell me I have to give up the English language and learn anything else. That is offensive.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman:

I must really be sheltered or not that bright. Who is telling you that you have to give up English? Who is telling you that you need to put somebody's ethnic standing before their citizenship? I don't think that anybody is.

Now, people might be telling you that it would benefit you to learn Spanish or some other language to better communicate with those people who don't have English as a first language, but that is different. People may be telling you that you should respect another person's ethnic and cultural background, but that is different than saying that they aren't American.

Also, the ethic dividing has gone on long before these immigration discussions of late. How many Americans (yes, white Americans) identify themselves with some sort of ethnic label? How many of us dress up in green in mid-March because of some long-lost ancestor that came from Ireland, or how many of us call ourselves "Norwegian" or "Swedish" because we have an "-son" or "-sen" at the end of our names? Heck, I have an Irish background, but I am no more "Irish" than a person with the surname of Perez or Lopez. I am an American, first and foremost, and I am sure than many fellow Americans feel this way, regardless of whether their family has been here for one or twenty generations.

I think that this is a discussion in need of a problem. There is no problem unless people allow there to be a problem.

Who is focusing on Obama's "blackness" or Clinton's gender? I'm not, nor is anybody that I talk to in my social circles. I don't read about it in the paper or see it on the evening news.

Where do I hear people focusing on it? I'll tell you... I hear about it on Fox News. I hear el Rushbo talking about it literally every time I tune in to listen to him. I hear the talk radio personalities on AM 1270 talking about it.

It's the media... correction, the right-wing media... that is focusing on this subject and turning a non-issue into an issue. Ignore it, focus on a person's position key issues, and it will remain a non-issue.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I am an American, first and foremost, and I am sure than many fellow Americans feel this way, regardless of whether their family has been here for one or twenty generations.


Bigdaddy, if you were not so rabidly partisan you would see that we agree on this.



> I must really be sheltered or not that bright. Who is telling you that you have to give up English? Who is telling you that you need to put somebody's ethnic standing before their citizenship? I don't think that anybody is.


I think when they want to vote for what is the official language in Colorado that people are putting their ethnicity before their citizenship. I think when they fly the Mexican flag over an American school they are putting their ethnicity before their citizenship. If they are citizens.



> I think that this is a discussion in need of a problem. There is no problem unless people allow there to be a problem.


And I think your absolutely wrong. They (the government and the liberals) push celebration of diversity so hard that people are driven apart. What happened to celebrating unity?



> Who is focusing on Obama's "blackness" or Clinton's gender? I'm not, nor is anybody that I talk to in my social circles. I don't read about it in the paper or see it on the evening news.


Then your not watching the news. On the standard networks that you watch, not just Fox (can't blame them for everything Bigdaddy) they ask the question "is Obama black enough". Black leaders have asked, "is Obama black enough". I don't understand what exactly they are getting at, but they asked "is Hillary black enough". They have also asked if Hillary creates a gender divide. The television, the radio, the newspapers. What can you possibly mean you have watched the news and not heard it?

I think I understand your position Bigdaddy. Diversity is a liberal child, and you as a stanch liberal will protect your child at any cost. I know celebrating diversity is well meaning, but once again it is liberal feelings over logic, but that's ok with liberals it is the intention that counts, not the outcome.

Did you miss the part where I said Obama was perhaps and admirable man? Do conservatives ever say anything right?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman:

OK, I'll play your game.



> And I think your absolutely wrong. They (the government and the liberals) push celebration of diversity so hard that people are driven apart. What happened to celebrating unity?


Celebrating diversity is unifying, not divisive. This is because it is inclusive, not exclusive. For example, I attended a neighborhood celebration in Wisconsin a few years ago to celebrate Cinco de Maio. It was organized by a group of local Mexican-Americans (yes, Americans first and foremost). They put on the celebration as a means for their non-Hispanic neighbors to better understand the holiday, to eat some good ethnic food, and to meet one another as people. It was inclusive. Everybody was invited, and I hope that everybody had as good of a time as I did. That celebration helped unify a neighborhood because it helped to open up communication between ethnic groups and increase understanding.

The citizens of Wishek do the same thing every year with their Sauerkraut Festival. It is a way for them to express their affection for their German heritage, and everybody is invited to participate. Again, it is not devisive unless you allow it to be. Do I sit up here in Bismarck with a paranoid mind and wonder why those folks in Wishek don't simply accept the fact that they are American and drop the celebrations of their heritage? Nope. And this is why I don't ask the Americans with other ethnic backgrounds to discard their heritage either.

Do you think that these sorts of multi-cultural activities are divisive? I hope not.

If we truly embrace diversity and believe that it gives us strength, then we need to truly embrace it. I don't care if you are Catholic and don't want to eat fish on Friday. I don't protest the fact that my cafetaria has caved to multi-culturalism and offered a large number of non-meat foods to appease the Catholics. If I was less tolerant, I'd ask why those Catholics act don't act more "non-Catholic". I don't raise a stink when my local pub replaces its normal "American" beer on March 17 each year to appease those people with Irish decent. After all, why can't those people just accept the fact that they are American and act less 'Irish"?

And no, I don't expect Hispanics to abandon their heritgate and act less "Hispanic" and I don't expect Arabs to abandon their heritage either.



> I know celebrating diversity is well meaning, but once again it is liberal feelings over logic, but that's ok with liberals it is the intention that counts, not the outcome.


Now I ask you, who is using feeling and emotion to advance an issue? It is conservatives that have used fear to advance their positions on a whole variety of issues. They have used fear of Al Qaeda (a small group of miltant Muslims) to promote ethnic profiling, the ability to retain people with Arab descent as enemy combatants, and as rationale for the government to violate civil liberties and monitor communications. Conservatives have used a message of fear to convince ignorant people that all liberals are coming for their guns. They have used fear to suggest that Obama is a closet Muslim. And yes, they are using this fear of other cultures as a means to fuel the debate on multi-culturalism. After all, don't some of those Hispanics coming in illegally from Mexico look a little Arab?

So now I ask you.... Who is really using emotion over logic? Who is using discussions of diversity as an attempt to divide people? It's you.

Last, there is a dirty little secret with all of these discussions of multi-culturalism and diversity. I am not saying that this applies to you, but I will say that this applies to many people that say that we are caving into multi-culturalism.

There are people that are fearful that the U.S. is no longer a country of White European, Christian decent. This is true. These people wonder why we excuse Muslim children from gym class during Ramadan in this new world of "multi-culturalism", but don't see any problem with "American" children singing "Silent Night" during a Christmas concert. They wonder why Chinese Americans act "non-American" and celebrate Chinese newyear, but they think nothing of White Americans celebrating St. Patricks Day. They question why 'foreigners" don't simply learn how to speak English, but talk rather proudly about folks in the Iron Triangle of ND taht spoke German better than English as little as 40 years ago.

Are people truly concerned about diversity and mult-culturalism, or are they only concerned when it involves cultures beyond their European, Christian heritage?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It may surprise you that I agree with most of what you say. I agree that there is nothing wrong with celebrating Cinco de Maio, I would have enjoyed being there with you. The thing I like most about Arizona is the southwest food. I also agree that it perfectly acceptable for the people of Wishek to celebrate their heritage. It's ok, it's better than ok for people to do this. God bless them all. However, it's not right for the government to try push people together. If you want people to be unified celebrate that, and lead them, you can not push people.

I also don't care if people eat veggies on Friday, Monday, or any day of the week. I only get ticked when vegetarians will not let me eat meat in peace.

I'm not asking Hispanics to abandon their heritage, I hope they do not. I am asking that they come to this country legally, and that it is the American flag flying over American schools. I would never think of going to any other country and pulling down their flag to raise an American flag. Not unless it was a war in which I was victorious.



> Now I ask you, who is using feeling and emotion to advance an issue?


That's an easy answer - liberals. I think most of the diversity celebration is to appeal to each individual ethnic segment of our society for political advantage, not real unity.



> They have used fear of Al Qaeda (a small group of miltant Muslims) to promote ethnic profiling


I think we have gone through this before. Al Qaeda are not the only radical Muslims. It isn't so much profiling as it is common sense. Bigdaddy if you're a guard at an airport and a Iranian approaches from the right and 80 year old grandma approaches from the left and asks you if you want some lefsa which one will you search? I'll bet it will be the Iranian because he is approaching from the right. 



> These people wonder why we excuse Muslim children from gym class during Ramadan in this new world of "multi-culturalism", but don't see any problem with "American" children singing "Silent Night" during a Christmas concert.


I think I am the "these people" your are referring to, but you have the wording wrong. I wonder why liberals think Muslims should be excused to worship in school ------ but *do* see a problem with Christian children worshiping in school. I would say fair is let them both do it. I think I smell the stench of religious prejudice coming from the left.

"These People" are multicultural parents, teachers, pastors, policeman, social workers etc. What is it that's wrong with "these people" that you evidently find so disgusting. Simply the fact that they are conservative?


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

I think I am the "these people" your are referring to, but you have the wording wrong. I wonder why liberals think Muslims should be excused to worship in school ------ but do see a problem with Christian children worshiping in school. I would say fair is let them both do it. I think I smell the stench of religious prejudice coming from the left.

this is exactly one of the problems! this is an example of favoritism, not multi-cultural backgrounds experiencing equal treatment. when groups and administrations enforce such rules upon our schools/students, it automatically causes resentment, nothing too hard to understand about that! next thing you know, people learn to hate diversity training and having this jammed down their throats. hard to "buy in" when you are being told you have no choice. why don't the liberals get it??


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I don't think that Muslim students should be excused to give them a special time to pray. I don't think that Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or pagan students should be given special time in school to pray either. Students (and teachers) can pray when they wake up, they can pray to themselves on the bus, they can pray gathered around the flagpole before school, they can even pray standing at the urinal taking a whiz. I don't care. However, it should never be a school-organized activity.

These sorts of debates go the other way too, though. I remember a meeting of my school in Minnesota when a Jewish family protested the singing of religious songs during the school Christmas concert. One of my best friends was the only Jewish kid in town and he could really sing. However, how does a Jewish kid comfortably sing about baby Jesus in a Christmas concert? He doesn't. His family rightfully claimed that his religious beliefs prohibited participation in an official school activity.

The response from the citizenry was not unexpected. They stressed that we were a Christian nation and community, and that we had sung Christian songs during the Christmas concert for years before this one family decided to raise a stink. In essence, the Jewish family should simply understand that.

I think that we need to accommodate every religion or none of them. For simply logistic reasons, I vote for none.


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

BigDaddy said:


> Barack's message is a good one.


 :toofunny: uke:

Yeah, more taxes, more welfare, MORE GOVERNMENT, i.e. government needs to protect us from ourselves.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> think I smell the stench of religious prejudice coming from the left.


Oh, let me nip this in the bud. I am not anti-religious. You will be happy to know that I am a Christian. I just completed a stint as president of my church council, I taught a confirmation class for three years, and I recently mentored another young man as part of his requirements to be confirmed. In fact, just this very evening I am heading to my church since I am chair of a group to decide whether we should addd contemporary worship.

Therefore, I am not an atheist, nor am I anti-religious. I do, however, believe strongly in civil liberties.

What's funny is that Plainsman and I have discussed theological subjects on this board. Therefore, he knows darn well that I am not anti-religious. Like the claims of the "liberal media", and other conservative inventions (yes, they are inventions), this supposed "religious prejudice" of mine is a mirage. Whether religious prejudice exists in society in another thing, but it certainly doesn't exist in me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I know your not anti religious Bigdaddy. I think you're a well meaning tolerant liberal. I also understand that you like separation of church and state because you don't want the government telling you what to do. I agree, but the separation of church and state is intended to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. Religion is an integral part of some of us, and we can not separate it.

And yes I am happy to know every time you tell me Bigdaddy. I like you, and perhaps that is why I find us arguing so frustrating.

What I don't understand is why you think it is ok to let a Muslim worship in school and not a Christian.

Let me say I am certain we share many values. We get into arguments because even though we share values there are political things that we both have a jaded view of. It's not our fault it is the fault of the parties blaming each other for everything.

I do believe democrats are more prone to more useless gun laws. Is that even debatable?

Another thing that separates me from the liberal point of view is their touting of tolerance as if it is a good thing. It's as bad as celebrating not being American. Recently I found a post that more eloquently describes how I feel about tolerance. ""Tolerance of the lowest ethical standards, for the sake of unity, demeans us all".


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman:

You wrote:



> What I don't understand is why you think it is ok to let a Muslim worship in school and not a Christian.


See the following text in my post above:



> I don't think that Muslim students should be excused to give them a special time to pray. I don't think that Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or pagan students should be given special time in school to pray either.


and



> I think that we need to accommodate every religion or none of them. For simply logistic reasons, I vote for none.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Excuse me. You had two posts after my last one, and I only caught the last one. Well, I guess we agree on many things. I don't agree that after 200+ years we have to give up Christmas programs in school. Our nation was founded on these values, and if a Muslim student doesn't want to participate he should be free not to without any adverse affects.

Back to Obama. If he says what he means he is an ok person, but still liberal and not anyone I want as president.

The firearms thing does concern me also. Look back over the years and see which party has pushed for more and more gun laws. Then look at who will enforce existing laws. I am left to ask, do they want to stop the violence if they will not enforce the laws, or is the violence beneficial to their goal of disarming America? I think that is a fair scenario to ponder. It is a question born of experience with the liberals. Much like their hopes for failure in Iraq.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman:

You have your beliefs and I have mine.

I believe in civil liberties, and the Republican party lost my support when they decided that fear of terrorism made it OK to violate the rights of US citizens. They decided that the need for electronic wiretapping superceded the right of unreasonable search and seizure. They decided that the need to retain terrorist suspects (some of which are US citizens) superceded habeas corpus and the right to a speedy trial. They believed that executive privelege superceded the need for them to answer questions on anything that they didn't want to answer.

I also believe in politics of hope and optimism, not in politics of fear. The Republican party has cultivated a climate of fear to get where it is today. They justified the war in Iraq based on fear, they violated civil liberties based on fear, and they continue to gain support by making Americans fearful. Their entire gun position (which you have now bought into) is that liberals are just waiting for the day when they can knock down your door in the wee hours to take your guns. They prey on the fear that we all have of something bad happening to our families and not being able to defend them. I refuse to live my live by being afraid.

I believe that the war against terror[ism] can never be won through military action. Religious conflicts are always a terrible thing because both sides truly believe that they have the morally superior, divinely directed mission. Instead, the war against terrorism will be won by changing the hearts and minds of fellow humans. We do this by showing terrorists that we are not afraid... they can blow up buildings, set off bombs, but we can always respond by showing them that our culture believes in forgiveness and the perpetual belief that tomorrow will be better than today. If we can do that, and if we can geniunely show that we consider all people (even Muslims) to be children of God, then we will win. Eventually, they will cease to be able to recruit people for their cause. Based on what I have observed, that belief is not widely held, nor conveyed, by the Republican party.

Last, I come back to the word "conservative" itself. The word is associated with being static, with holding fast to tradition, and being slow or opposed to change. See, I believe that there is a lot in this world that needs change. We can be better than we are, and this country can be better than it is. To get there, we need to change. As they are defined, conservatives oppose that change. That is why I am a liberal and a proud liberal at that.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yes I am sure that if we met each other in person it is likely we would like each other. However my guess is we will continue to frustrate each other terribly until the 2008 election is over. We should both perhaps get a good antacid.
Your first addressing of the wire tap issues etc. Didn't the democrats just pass that again for a few years? Are you angry with them?



> I also believe in politics of hope and optimism, not in politics of fear.


Me too, but I believe the climate of fear is on the other foot. Fear that if we don't appease the terrorists they will hurt us. Fear of Christianity. Fear of firearms. Fear, fear, fear. Fear of the Christian right. Fear of republicans. Fear of global warming. Fear of SUV's. Etc etc etc . Fear Ad nauseam



> I believe that the war against terror[ism] can never be won through military action. Religious conflicts are always a terrible thing because both sides truly believe that they have the morally superior, divinely directed mission. Instead, the war against terrorism will be won by changing the hearts and minds of fellow humans.


Hey, that would be great. How do we do it before they kill a lot of us?



> We do this by showing terrorists that we are not afraid... they can blow up buildings, set off bombs, but we can always respond by showing them that our culture believes in forgiveness and the perpetual belief that tomorrow will be better than today.


OK, sort of like rape. Don't fight back and maybe they will not hurt us --- is that what your saying?



> If we can do that, and if we can geniunely show that we consider all people (even Muslims) to be children of God, then we will win. Eventually, they will cease to be able to recruit people for their cause.


If the democratic party believes that then they are scaring the heck out of me. If they believe it then they will loose in 2008 because very few people are that naive.

I can see where you and I disagree. When I see the word conservative it means to me not wasteful. We don't throw money away. We don't waste our natural resources.

I don't associate you with liberal, because I can not bring myself to think badly of you. However, conversely when I see the world liberal I think tolerance without limit. Tolerance without limit could be without ethics or morals. I see them promoting promiscuity, drugs, and other unsavory things, while at the same time attacking Americas moral values. Please don't take this personal, because as I said I don't associate this with you, and I feel bad saying this. I do think liberals are dragging America into the dirt, and away from the things that made this nation great. My hope is in the knowledge that a liberal in North Dakota does not equate to a liberal in Washington DC. Bigdaddy I'm always wishing the best for you, and I know you bear me no malice either.

I know liberals see themselves as progressive. One must make sure that progress isn't towards the quick sand.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Quote: 


> We do this by showing terrorists that we are not afraid... they can blow up buildings, set off bombs, but we can always respond by showing them that our culture believes in forgiveness and the perpetual belief that tomorrow will be better than today.





> OK, sort of like rape. Don't fight back and maybe they will not hurt us --- is that what your saying?


Nope, not at all. One can repel a rapist by sheer force or deter rape in the future through fear of strong reprisals. This is because rape, while henious, is not rooted in a deeply-held religious conviction. Furthermore, I contend that most (maybe all) rapists and other criminals know deep in their heart the difference between right and wrong.

This is not true with religious convictions. Those beliefs go beyond rationale thought. A person committing an act for religious purposes believes deep in their heart that what they are doing is right.

That is the difference and that is why you can't win a religious war through force. Fear of strong reprisals means nothing to a religious fanatic because they think that their god is on their side.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think we could roll on our back and expose our throats like a dog in submission and they would just think thank you for letting us kill you so easy. These people are nuts, and no amount of kindness will register with them.

You do have a point about the difference between rape and religious nut cases, but you propose the same solution that many people tell women about rape. Personally I would also fight both the same, kill the suckers if you get half a chance.

I think your looking at the world through rose colored glasses (but God bless you). There are people who understand nothing but force. Kill them or they kill you. There is no way I will believe that pacifism will make these people pick you a bouquet, but I'll take up a collection and buy your ticket to Bagdad for a shot at it.


----------

