Discrimination

[inked]

LCoU, we agree. Here is an exempla gratia:

(http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010513.php)

May 21, 2005
Lies and the Lying Liberals Who Tell Them

Last February, we helped former Interior Secretary James Watt set the record straight when he was libelled by Bill Moyers. Our exposure of Moyers's falsehoods resulted in a letter of apology from Moyers to Watt (which, however, was insincere), a correction in the Washington Post, and a weird sort-of-correction in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Now, to its credit, the Post has given Mr. Watt equal time to rebut the slander that is being perpetrated against conservative Christians. Watt's article is "The Religious Left's Lies." Here are some excerpts:

The religious left's political operatives have mounted a shrill attack on a significant portion of the Christian community. Four out of five evangelical Christians supported President Bush in 2004 -- a third of all ballots cast for him, according to the Pew Research Center. ... The religious left took note. Political opportunists in its ranks sought a wedge issue to weaken the GOP's coalition of Jews, Catholics and evangelicals and shatter its electoral majority. They passed over obvious headliners and landed on a curious but cunning choice: the environment. Those leading the charge are effective advocates: LBJ alumnus Bill Moyers of PBS fame, members of the National Council of Churches USA and liberal theologians who claim a moral superiority to other people of faith.
Last December Moyers received an environmental award from Harvard University. About three paragraphs into the speech, after attacking the Bush administration, Moyers said: "James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, 'After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.' Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true -- one-third of the American electorate if a recent Gallup poll is accurate."

I never said it. Never believed it. Never even thought it. I know no Christian who believes or preaches such error. The Bible commands conservation -- that we as Christians be careful stewards of the land and resources entrusted to us by the Creator.

Moyers is not without reinforcements. A liberal theologian and active participant in the National Council of Churches, Barbara R. Rossing of the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, published a book titled "The Rapture Exposed." ... Rossing contends that Christians who believe in the Rapture presume that there is no need for stewardship of natural resources because of the expected return of the Lord. She writes: "Watt told U.S. senators that we are living at the brink of the end-times and implied that this justifies clear-cutting the nation's forest and other unsustainable environmental policies. When he was asked about preserving the environment for future generations, Watt told his Senate confirmation hearing, 'I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns.' Watt's 'use it or lose it' view of the world's resources is a perspective shared by the Rapture proponents."

Rossing fictionalizes this whole scenario and neglects to finish the sentence, which was as follows: "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns; whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations."

On Feb. 14, the National Council of Churches issued a statement "in an effort to refute" what NCC theologians "call a 'false gospel' . . . and to reject teachings that suggest humans are 'called' to exploit the Earth without care for how our behavior impacts the rest of God's creation. . . . This false gospel still finds its proud preachers and continues to capture its adherents among emboldened political leaders and policymakers."

If such a body of belief exists, I would totally reject it, as would all of my friends. When asked who believed such error, where adherents to this "false gospel" might be found, the NCC turned to its theological sources, Moyers and a magazine called Grist, which had also apologized to me. I then contacted the chairman of the NCC task force and asked him about the "some people" who believe this false gospel and the "proud preachers" advancing this false gospel. He could not name such persons.


This would be shocking, if we were not so thoroughly accustomed to the mendacity of the left. A Lutheran theologian offers, as the key support for her attack on a former government official, a single sentence--from which she has removed the second half, thereby reversing its meaning. Is this really what they teach in the seminary? As a Lutheran, I hope not. Then, the National Council of Churches issues a press release attacking a purported body of theological opinion which is said to be associated with "emboldened political leaders and policymakers"--Republicans all, of course. Yet, when challenged to name a single person who holds these supposedly widespread views, the person who headed up the task force for the NCC is stumped. He can't name a single human being who holds the views he has so vigorously denounced. This is, apparently, the quality of scholarship we should expect from the National Council of Churches. Pathetic.

Thanks to Jim Watt for pointing out today's article to us. Mr. Watt is a kindly gentleman who was enjoying a well-deserved retirement from public life, when he was dragged back into the political fray, against his will, by virtue of being relentlessly libelled by Bill Moyers and other liberals. It's good to see that, having been forced to participate once more in public debate, he is defending himself with the skill and determination that, decades ago, he brought to his years of public service.

Posted by John at 09:57 AM

[Spock]

Well said LCOU.!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by inked

LCoU, we agree.

shock! horror! a first for everything!!

Originally Posted by spock

Well said LCOU.!

thankee kindly

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by inked

Lies and the Lying Liberals Who Tell Them

This is hilarious.

Tom Lehrer famously pronounced that satire was dead when Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize. With these moral majority types moaning about how they're discriminated against, satire has died all over again.

[Rían]

Did you read the article, Gaffer? A national figure like Bill Moyers using quotes that made Watts look like a total jerk, and he never said it?! And that lady using only half of a sentence - removing the second half, which changed the meaning to be totally opposite?!

The Moyers thing just blows my mind - a public speech while accepting an award from Harvard, and he says, "James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, 'After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.' "

I mean, claiming that Watt said that to Congress (when he NEVER said it and doesn't even believe it!) in public testimony just blows my mind ... but what really irritates me is the feeling that if a conservative said that about a liberal, there would be a national hullabaloo

I think what most "moral majority" types are complaining about, Gaffer, is that they feel they are on the short end of a double standard.

[Insidious Rex]

Sure looks like they are in the drivers seat of a steam roller and gleefully aiming for things unlike them every chance they get. Not sure where your perspective is frankly... And I have no sympathy whatsoever for James Watt whose proved himself a bombastic intolerant boob far too many times to count. After all this was the man who proposed selling off state parks to the rich as an environmental policy...

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Did you read the article, Gaffer?

Yes, I did! * waves *

The first thing that struck me was the completely unbalanced tone of the article. In a way, this is a good thing. As soon as you see the title, you know that you are about to read an irrational rant.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The Moyers thing just blows my mind - a public speech while accepting an award from Harvard, and he says, "James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, 'After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.' "

So, at worst, one guy misrepresented somebody's views in a speech.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I mean, claiming that Watt said that to Congress (when he NEVER said it and doesn't even believe it!) in public testimony just blows my mind ... but what really irritates me is the feeling that if a conservative said that about a liberal, there would be a national hullabaloo

I'd be extremely surprised if there was. I hear conservatives say much, much worse things about liberals in the media. And anyway, it seems to me that it's the moral majority who are always complaining the loudest about having their views oppressed.

Can you understand that, from my leftwing perspective, it is deeply ironic to hear such complaints from the same people who complain that gay marriage is an oppression of their views?

Also, what DID he say to Congress then?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think what most "moral majority" types are complaining about, Gaffer, is that they feel they are on the short end of a double standard.

Whereas in reality, again from my perspective, they are on the blunt end of several and driving them relentlessly forward.

[inked]

And now..........Canada!

An interesting discrimination (in multiple senses):

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/sho...ting_lies.html

Whereupon it would seem that the open is that all folks disagreeing with the erstwhile interpretations of Canada's courts, should just leave Canada. Gotta love those "tolerant, loving, non-discriminatory" types, don't ya?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So, at worst, one guy misrepresented somebody's views in a speech.

"misrepresented"?! Well, yes, but there are degrees of misrepresentation, and public figures have a higher standard of responsibility when speaking publically and actually saying a quote is in public record, IMHO.

Let me "misrepresent" your position on a current issue in two ways as an example -

"I was chatting with Gaffer t'other day, and was surprised to hear that he is against gay marriage. When I asked him about it, he said that he has nothing against them as people - indeed he has some gay friends that he's very close with - but he just sincerely feels that gay marriage is neither good for them personally or good for society."

"I was chatting with Gaffer t'other day, and was surprised to hear that he is against gay marriage. When I asked him about it, he just blew me away with his anger and vehemence and irrationality! He said he hates gays and they should be shot, and when the last gay is dead then we will reach Nirvana."

Now there's two levels of "misrepresenting". I imagine you'd object more to the latter example, wouldn't you? To me, the example in the article falls in the realm of the latter example.

And then he goes on and extrapolates this view, wholesale, onto the people that believe the Bible is true?!

For the record, I don't believe that Jesus Christ is anxiously waiting for the last tree to be cut down, because He is unable to come back to earth until that happens.

I'd be extremely surprised if there was. I hear conservatives say much, much worse things about liberals in the media.

But are they true?
What I'm complaining about is the false quote aspect.

Can you understand that, from my leftwing perspective, it is deeply ironic to hear such complaints from the same people who complain that gay marriage is an oppression of their views?

I don't hear these people say it's an oppression of their views. I just hear them say they don't want to give up a say in the matter.

And again, what bothered me was ONLY the quoting, which was not only false, but was false AND a rather mean attack on his character.

Also, what DID he say to Congress then?

Don't know, but you can be sure that if he said anything close, that the press would have dug it up by now!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

And now..........Canada!

An interesting discrimination (in multiple senses):

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/sho...ting_lies.html

Whereupon it would seem that the open is that all folks disagreeing with the erstwhile interpretations of Canada's courts, should just leave Canada. Gotta love those "tolerant, loving, non-discriminatory" types, don't ya?

This is just a letter to the editor. Yes, the National Post published the letter, but that doesn't mean they agree with his statements. The point of a "letters to the editor" section is to get a variety if interesting and/or different opinions. I'm not entirely sure what the point of posting this article was - the debate over gay marriage is pretty hot in Canada, I'm sure you could have found something more exciting.

That being said, the guy does have a point (sort of), in the brief snippet quoted here:

The writer, Eric LeGresley, claims that the "courts have spoken" and that: "Diehard opponents of homosexual marriage truly have only three choices: change the Charter of Rights, emigrate to a less tolerant country or accept that Canada's constitution requires equality of treatment irrespective of sexual orientation."

Though I don't think opponents of gay marriage should have to leave, they do have to accept the fact the Charter doesn't prevent same-sex marriage. As for the three options LeGresley gives, they aren't entirely accurate as the article points out.

1. Change the Charter of Rights: Well, they can try, but no matter what people feel on the issue of gay marriage, I think the majority of Canadians don't want to screw around with the Charter. This is also not the most practical option. Sensibly, it is very hard to change the Charter. Hopefully the reason why will become clear later in this post.

2. Emigrate: Some people loudly said that they would move out of the United States if George Bush was re-elected. I believe most did not move. This illustrates that even if you strongly disagree with the current administration or government, moving out of the country is a stupid solution. Firstly, citizens of peaceful countries are damn lucky. Secondly, the government is not the entire country. IMO it's ridiculous to reject your whole country because of a few laws or policies. If they piss you off that much, try to change them and make your country a better place.

3. Deal with it: Well, yeah.

This brings us to the fourth option that Mr. LeGresley didn't mention. If opponents to same-sex marriage live in the provinces that have legalized it, then they can gather like-minded people and lobby the parliment to change the law.
LeGresley neglects two things about Canadian law. First, that the Charter is not a law in itself, rather, it is well, the Charter. It protects all Canadian citizens by ensuring that no discriminatory laws are enacted. Thus, you can't make a law forbidding gay marriage. However, the Charter doesn't make anything legal by itself, it sets the stage for fair laws to be made by the appropriate government - either federal or provincial.
Second, marriage laws are determined by the provinces. There's no use complaining about the Charter. If you don't like your province's marriage law (ones that either include or exclude gay couples) then the Charter protects your right to complain about it and/or try to change it.

IMO people shouldn't be hasty about saying the Charter should be changed before they realize it protects them too.

[/Charter rant]

Neither I, nor the National Post, Eric Gresley, nor any one individual or organization speak for Canada as a whole. Our actions speak for us - some provinces and territories have legalized gay marriage, others have not. We are divided on this issue, but we still are, by and large, a tolerant, loving, and non-discriminatory nation. Above all, the basic human rights of all citizens, regardless of their stance on this issue, are protected.
That's what really says something about Canada, not one guy's letter to the editor. So while I agree with him about gay marriage (which I assume he supports), I don't agree with him about everything. Many socially liberal people and/or gay marriage supporters might find themselves in a similar position. We might agree on one issue, but we're still individuals.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Now there's two levels of "misrepresenting". I imagine you'd object more to the latter example, wouldn't you? To me, the example in the article falls in the realm of the latter example.

For sure, though what you've missed out is that, if I was a public figure, anyone who had heard of me would know straight away that both were misrepresentations. In that sense, it's not a valid comparison.

As IRex pointed out, this Watt guy was hardly an environmentalist. A better comparison would be if you said that I favoured compulsory gay marriage for straights.

I accept that it's a potentially harmful misrepresentation. It's MORE harmful because the guy already has a reputation as being anti-environment so it's more believable.

I did a bit of net trawling to try to find out what he did say to Congress, without success I have to say (curse those zillions of bloggers with nothing better to do than rant on and on and link to each others' sites).

However, did come up with some background about Watt. It's interesting to compare the casting of Watt as a kindly old man with his criminal conviction for witholding documents from a grand jury.

http://www.cnn.com/US/Newsbriefs/9603/03-12/

But hey, at least he didn't lie about having sex with an intern. He only lied about making shed loads of money by corrupting the processes of government, so that's OK then.

Do you see my point about how the right crying foul at such times is deeply ironic?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And then he goes on and extrapolates this view, wholesale, onto the people that believe the Bible is true?!

Then he's a fool.

But is it discrimination? I think not.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't hear these people say it's an oppression of their views. I just hear them say they don't want to give up a say in the matter.

I didn't even have to leave this page to find an example:

Originally Posted by inked

Whereupon it would seem that the open is that all folks disagreeing with the erstwhile interpretations of Canada's courts, should just leave Canada. Gotta love those "tolerant, loving, non-discriminatory" types, don't ya?

In case it needs spelled out, here we have someone crying discrimination because their views on homosexuality are challenged. Oh, and the person who wrote the letter inked linked to (!) recommends that LeGresley should have been censored because he was "lying".

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

For sure, though what you've missed out is that, if I was a public figure, anyone who had heard of me would know straight away that both were misrepresentations. In that sense, it's not a valid comparison.

But a lot of people haven't heard Watt (or you ) so they would go off of what they heard someone else says. And when it's said in a public speech, at a distinguished university, by a public figure, then they would tend to give it more credence.

It's just that misrepresenting someone's viewpoint is really a hot button for me. And to do it at Harvard, and say he said something in testimony to Congress?!?! Moyers was either being incredibly irresponsible, or perhaps just being a bully, IMO.

However, did come up with some background about Watt. It's interesting to compare the casting of Watt as a kindly old man with his criminal conviction for witholding documents from a grand jury.

What he did there was certainly wrong. I imagine Moyers has done some things wrong, too. I don't think Watt is perfect and Moyers is evil; I think both are a mix. What I'm condemning is NOT Moyers or even "the liberals"; I'm condemning meanly misquoting someone in such a public forum. And I'd condemn any conservative who did it, too.

Do you see my point about how the right crying foul at such times is deeply ironic?

Is the left perfect? Do you have trouble with THEM crying foul? I don't see how it's "ironic" unless the right is always wrong and the left is never wrong. I certainly hope you don't think that! Again, I'm not judging the left or the right - I'm judging an action, and I'd condemn it in ANYONE.

In case it needs spelled out, here we have someone crying discrimination because their views on homosexuality are challenged.

Sorry, I lost you here - who are you referring to with your "someone"?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Though I don't think opponents of gay marriage should have to leave, they do have to accept the fact the Charter doesn't prevent same-sex marriage.

And it doesn't prevent polygamy, either, or other grouping options ... it seems to me that if one wants to be logically consistent, then they would need to say just let everyone vote on what they think marriage should be defined as, or just throw out marriage entirely. I really don't see any ground between the two, do you?

If you don't like your province's marriage law (ones that either include or exclude gay couples) then the Charter protects your right to complain about it and/or try to change it.

IMO, that is the right (and logically consistent) attitude to have. That is tolerant.

As for the three options LeGresley gives, they aren't entirely accurate as the article points out.

I have problems with 2 and 3 -

His #2 was this : "emigrate to a less tolerant country" - as usual, I find the usage of the word "tolerant" very ironic. Here, as usual, it is used to mean "you're tolerant as long as you think what I think is right", UNLESS the author is willing to be tolerant of people wanting to enter into ANY other grouping option. What's the Mormon population in Canada? Does Canada allow polygamy, as many Mormons still think is right? Or is Canada not a "tolerant" country in this regard?

I find the use of the word "tolerant" here just plain ridiculous, as well as intolerant of others, unless the author is going to accept ANY grouping a person desires.

His #3 was this : "or accept that Canada's constitution requires equality of treatment irrespective of sexual orientation." Same objection as above. Sexual orientation can include polygamy or other orientations that are not looked upon too favorably by most of us here but ARE liked by some. So be "equal" to ALL sexual orientations, or let the people vote.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by Garina

It is well known that all people should be treated equally, whatever race, gender or religion. This is especially the case with ethnic minorities. In my school, discrimination against minorities is dealt with severely. Or should I say, against obvious minorities.

You forgot sexual preference.

[Spock]

lets not forget Lumberjacks, people who say "Ni", The Larch, funny walks people and people who don't wear bags over their heads , this whole thing is out of hand, IMO

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What he did there was certainly wrong. I imagine Moyers has done some things wrong, too. I don't think Watt is perfect and Moyers is evil; I think both are a mix. What I'm condemning is NOT Moyers or even "the liberals"; I'm condemning meanly misquoting someone in such a public forum.

Well it certainly looks like it, so I think we are in agreement on that.

But is it discrimination?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Is the left perfect? Do you have trouble with THEM crying foul? I don't see how it's "ironic" unless the right is always wrong and the left is never wrong. I certainly hope you don't think that! Again, I'm not judging the left or the right - I'm judging an action, and I'd condemn it in ANYONE.

Me too!

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Sorry, I lost you here - who are you referring to with your "someone"?

inked.

He posted a link in a thread entitled "discrimination", with his own comment that it illustrated Canadians' "discrimination... in multiple senses". We can only infer that his view is that it's discriminatory for Canada to have a system whereby people who object to gay marriage can either accept that it may be legal under the Charter of Rights, attempt to change the law, or live elsewhere!

I'm really struggling to see where the discrimination is there.

* high five to Canada, by the way *

just let everyone vote on what they think marriage should be defined as

Nay, nay and thrice nay

Why? Because that's a route to fascism. That's why countries have things like Bills of Rights, Constitutions and the like (apart from the UK of course!). It protects minorities from discrimination by the majority.

Do I win the mystery prize for getting us back on topic?

[Rían]

Well, we're back to the relative merits of different types of governments. No one is perfect, but I think rule by majority is safer than rule by the few.

[The Gaffer]

Interestingly, the referendum-crazy Swiss just voted to allow gay marriage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4610729.stm

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

inked.

He posted a link in a thread entitled "discrimination", with his own comment that it illustrated Canadians' "discrimination... in multiple senses". We can only infer that his view is that it's discriminatory for Canada to have a system whereby people who object to gay marriage can either accept that it may be legal under the Charter of Rights, attempt to change the law, or live elsewhere!

I'm really struggling to see where the discrimination is there.

I imagine it's just the "leave it" part that he thinks is discrimination.

[inked]

and in jolly old E: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4073480.stm

and India: http://www.christiantoday.com/news/m...stians/373.htm

and the UN: http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/015223.html