Who said dismiss it out of hand? You COULD make the argument that a lot of things are in the public interest, like stoning women found to have been promiscuous. Doesn't make it desirable, or just, unless you have a relative outlook and figure 'hey, to each his own.' Oh wait, you do.
Texas is just as backward as Georgia when it comes to views on homosexuality. As a matter of fact, that is precisely what happened in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. The police arrested two gay men who were in bed in their home because that violated the sodomy law in Texas. But I agree with you that such a law is crazy.
It's still up to their public whether to have progressive views or not. Besides judging and learning from them, what more do you want to do? Intervene a democratic nation? I wonder if people would accept Europe or Russia invading us in the 60's because their justification was to desegregate the races and to stop the political assassinations.
Interesting argument indeed. I am an African American who grew up in Alabama. My adulthood was in the height of the Civil Rights struggle. From that perspective, I can say that life in the South for us was nothing short of hell. I voted in 1964, but I voted in fear. My everyday life was filled with fear, despair, and intimidation. The South of the 1950's and 1960's was definitely a situation that was worth intervening in. I wonder what others on this board feel about the argument of having a foreign entity intervene.
It is an interesting concept. I think we are still working on the problem. I will say that what progress we made, was handled without foreign intervention, and that in itself is reason enough to say it wasn't necessary. Sadly it hasn't been totally free of bloodshed, but probably not on the same level as a foreign invasion would have been.
I agree with you. As terrible as the struggle was, I would have never supported foreign intervention. I would have never wanted Canadian troops or anyone else patrolling Birmingham. On this, I am with Lynyrd Skynyrd and the song "Sweet Home Alabama."As bad as the South was, I would never want an outsider like Neil Young degrading it because Neil Young, a Canadian, was an outsider (the song "Sweet Home Alabama" was written as a response to Neil Young's song, "Southern man."). I suppose that is the same feeling that a lot of anti-Americans in Iraq have today. It's not that they are against democracy, but rather they do not want a foreigner patrolling their streets. However, it is an interesting parallel to what Bush is doing today. I am definitely not saying that the Civil Rights struggle was the equivalent of what is occurring in places like Iraq. On the flip side, the Civil Rights struggle was by no means insignificant enough to where the concept of foreign intervention can just be shrugged off and dismissed. The Civil Rights struggle was a genuine form of tyranny and oppression. George Wallace (who was my governor) was definitely a dictator in his own right. I wonder if the people who support us "liberating" others in foreign lands would have supported people like me being "liberated" by France in the 1950's and 1960's.
Well, Bowers is the precedent, just so we're clear. So not really sure what your point is. Glad to see you agree in principle though.
Radically different. First, this thread ISN'T about Iraq. Second, the system here allowed for a change in laws, attitude, and function. The system in Iraq did NOT.
Yes, our system allows for change in laws, attitude, and function, but that doesn't mean that change for the better takes place. I remember drinking from water fountains at my local park that said "whites only." I remember going into restrooms that said "whites only." And I remember going downtown, with my Grandmother to shop at Foley's, on the bus with all the Blacks riding in the back. Those conditions, and much worse, existed for decades. Some very brave people, white and black, risked everything (and for the politicians, like JFK and LBJ, risking their political careers were "everything" for them) to make that change, still ongoing, but real, happen. But those people were working for change in their own country. It was their choice. Look at the President's budget, and see where programs are being cut. Look at how the cost of the Iraq invasion and occupation is still being "hidden" from the American people. And look at this President still calling, with all the billions we are spending on the war, for his tax cuts to be made "permanent," adding thousands of billions of dollars to the deficit, and providing his justification for his radical proposals for SS, among many other radical ideas of this Administration. The whole thing makes me sick. Keep D&D Civil!!
Lawrence overturned Bowers. Bowers said that states could outlaw sodomy while Lawrence overturned Bowers in saying that they could not. But yes, I am familiar with both cases. My point is exactly what I stated. Texas is just as backward as Georgia. Both states had laws that outlawed sodomy. If Georgia is backward for the law, then so is Texas. I guess my Southern pride is playing a role in you calling Georgia "backward."
I would argue the point, but there's not one. Bowers was the precedent. Nothing you said changes that.
Speculation that it would have been good for the Soviets to invade us is funny, but again replacing one totalitarian system with another is exactly the point - wouldn't be good. As I've said previously, our system allowed for change. Religous mullocracies don't allow for that. Communist totalitarian regimes don't allow for that. Doesn't mean we're perfect, but we're way the hell ahead in the game.
I've just been able to skim this debate but sounds very interesting. I'm about to go to Indonesia in a few hours and have to been to Indonesia several times. Indonesia has mostly been extremely moderate and at times almost liberal in regard to the Islam mostly practiced there. Its a huge country though and some reasons have been more conservative than others, notably Aceh. In the past few years though due there has been a streak of more conservative elements gaining power both politically and culturally. There's been a lot of upheavel in the last 7 years with political instability economic collapse and ethnic and religious conflict and of course natural disaster. The Islamic conservatives appear to be taking advantage of this to get power. One element that might be helping to fuel their rise is a distrust of the West, particularly America, that is bordering on xenophobia. When I first went to Indonesia in the early 90's I was fine saying I was an America but now I have to be very careful saying where I'm from since the level of hatred is high and many aren't afraid to express it. On a brighter note though US help for tsunami relief may turn things around but its going to be awhile to see how things play out. Culturally though their are wide ranging norms of acceptable behavior but for devout Muslims kissing in public has been taboo. I was watching 'The Empire Strikes Back' on Indonesian television last week and they edited out the kisses between Han and Leia and even the totally chaste kiss that Leia gave Luke to make Han jealous. In other parts of Indonesia though the standards are far differen. In Bali which is mostly its own branch of Hinduism, public displays of affection are tolerated along with showing female breasts, although the last time I went to Bali in the late 90's there seemed to be far fewer topless women at the beach and no locals unlike the first time I went there. So its very likely that many, possibly even a majority, don't approve of such strict laws. Its also likeley that many areas like Bali largely dependent on tourism will not approve of such. Given the uneasy state of Indonesian politics though its still possible that such laws might be passed. They might be passed with the stricture the they only applie to Muslims and that non-Muslims and foreigners are exempt like in Malaysia or other Islamic countries with signifigant Non-Muslim populations.
^ I've read of ethnic Chinese Indonesians being persecuted because of their class status. The open market globalisation trend hits third world nations pretty hard, so deep resentment among native Indonesians against ethnic Chinese (which usually run the businesses that global companies contract and the native Indonesians work) runs in the undercurrent. Maybe it's speculation at best, but it's something to look out for. Take care of yourself, and hopefully that won't ruin the fun you plan to have.
I did not intend to "change" anything. I talked about Lawrence. You attempted to educate me by saying that Bowers was the precedent and I merely stated that I am more than familiar with both cases.
I have only voted for 2 Democrats for President, and LBJ was one of them. That is precisely why I voted for him. BTW, the other Dem I voted for was Kerry
Yep, you're right. I didn't understand what you were saying until I went back and reread your posts. It was kind of a non sequitur.
LBJ really ticked me off. I was a Vietnam War protester, back in the late '60's, and he drove me crazy. I loved what he did in regard to civil rights and his social programs. They weren't perfect, but it was courageous of him to actually take JFK's ideas and get them passed, which JFK might never had been able to do, given the times. And many tend to forget what a poor background he came from, and how well he understood what average people were up against. At the same moment, he was lstening to a group of bad advisors (sound familiar??) about Vietnam, which JFK had planned to pull out of (it's in documents that used to be top secret, and are now in the public domain.), not long before he was killed. So I despised his Vietnam policy, while applauding his social policy. Most people, sadly, just think of Vietnam when they think of LBJ. He accomplished too much to have just that as his legacy. Keep D&D Civil!!
The civil rights ideas weren't totally JFK's either. Even as a senator LBJ was a strong advocate for civil rights. That had been a passion of his before working as VP with JFK. I agree with everything you said about LBJ, though I wasn't around at the time. But just looking at him, listenting to some of the tapes that have come out, etc. He presidency is one of the most complex we've had.
We are definitely in unison. In terms of civil rights and social programs, LBJ was nothing short of amazing. I agree with you that JFK might not have been able to accomplish what LBJ did, although most of what LBJ did accomplish originated from JFK. I was actually sent to Vietnam and I think that played a huge part in me voting for Kerry. Like you, I was vehemently against the war, especially when I came back. That was why I was able to relate to a lot of the things Kerry discussed in his 1971 Senate testimony. Prior to going, I was a little nieve. It is sad that people do remember LBJ for his Vietnam policies and not the other things he did. If you remember, towards the end of LBJ's presidency, he couldn't even leave the White House for fear of being shot. That's how despised he was because of Vietnam. Just looking at me, I voted for LBJ in 1964, but I would not have voted for him in 1968. He was smart in not running for reelection.
