1950 - Segregation
May. 22nd, 2012 08:30 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
wheelerwoolsey.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
vintageadswheelerwoolsey.livejournal.com posting in vintageadswheelerwoolsey.livejournal.com posting in vintageads
Profile
Vintage Ads
Page Summary
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 12:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 12:51 am (UTC)this country at times makes me sick......
no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 01:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 01:11 am (UTC)there's a protest page for that church which listed the contact info if you couldn't be there in person and i am composing an email, though of course i know it will fall on deaf ears.....i'm pointing out all the bible edicts he's ignoring (not wearing 2 types of cloth, not eating shell fish, pork, etc) and jesus promoting love, etc....i have read there are other churches opposing his words and i am glad that they are doing that.....it is individuals such at him who preach such hate that give all churches a bad name (and yes, i'm an atheist, but i don't view all churches as bad....).....
no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 05:29 pm (UTC)the difference is that the edicts that you are pointing out, miss tia, are old testament ceremonial laws that almost no Christian regards as moral laws (sins). homosexuality is mentioned in the old and new testament as a moral issue and therefore a Christian sin.
Jesus promoted love to his people in that, as humans, we cannot see the heart and do not know divine plans. Jesus as the son of God could see the heart and knew the future, so He could accept and reject people based on who they are, not how they were viewed from the outside. He regularly rejected people, "religious" people of the day who denied Him when they should have known better, common people who only followed Him to benefit from His miracles, etc. unfortunately people can only look on the outward appearance, so we are forced to judge someone by how they act.
all that said, homosexuality is no more a sin than atheism, from a Christian perspective. marriage, from a secular standpoint is simply a contract between two people, and i personally think you should be able to make such contracts between anyone you want. if you want to have a "secular marriage" with your sister, i don't care. secular marriage does not have to equate to sexual attraction.
but in Christianity, marriage adds many layers of meaning that are directly connected to the doctrines of the church. a homosexual marriage will never be a "Christian marriage" because it destroys these meanings. but neither will an atheistic marriage, or a hindhu Saptapadi, or whatever, and we don't have problems with those.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 05:46 pm (UTC)i appreciate your response...isn't there a bible quote (i am sorry i cannot think of the chapter verse) where jesus does state that all laws before him ---which would include the old testament---should also be abided by?
i do like the bible stories where jesus rejected religious people of the day and attacked the money changers in the temple---i often think of those stories when i see some of those preachers on tv preaching how jesus and god want you to be rich.....i truly think if a lot of those people studied the bible, they would realize there is no basis for such beliefs.....
didn't king solomon have 700 wives? the bible is a contradictory book, as would happen with many authors....
i think that laws should not be based on religions.....now i don't hide the fact that i am an atheist, but most proponents against gay marriage are christian or mormon....there are hundreds of different religions in this country....why favor one? what of the ones who don't believe? if people wish to have religious ceremonies to add a layer of blessings to their union, they should of course do that....but all individuals should be able to marry regardless of sexual orientation.....love is love......
i know that many churches are protesting this preacher, as they should!! i think any rational person of any faith---or of no faith, would be aghast at what this man is preaching.....i know some people who proclaim to be christian who would actually CHEER this man----i have a neighbor who would, her and her husband, her third husband......makes me sick.....i have a good friend who to me personifies a true christian, she doesn't judge, she does everything she can to help others, i have seen her draw strength from her faith, etc and i admit that not only do i admire her for that, in a way i am envious.....
no subject
Date: 2012-05-24 12:23 am (UTC)This is not to say that I am pro-polygamy because I think it causes some crazy problems, but if consenting adults want to practice that, then it's none of my business. Now, if your wife is 9-years-old, yeah, that's not good.
I totally agree that laws should not be based on any religion. I live in the Charlotte media market and saw all those pro-Amendment 1 ads that kept (vaguely) referring to the Bible and I thought these would be the same people who scream like hell if anyone mentions Sharia law (again, not a fan), but what's the difference, really?
As far as protesting this yahoo, it won't do any good. He will just dig his heels in further. A big part of some Christians' dogma is that of welcoming persecution for "righteousness's sake," as they would see it, so I think the best strategy is to just be dismissive. I also a strong believer in religious freedom no matter how stupid or offensive. I don't agree with Jeremiah Wright's comments, worshiping God through the handling of snakes, sharing your husband with sister wives, forbidding the use of smoke alarms in homes or many of the other crazy things people do in the name of religion--as long as these people don't try to impose their ways on non-followers. That's when the problems start. Keep it in church, folks!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-24 05:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-24 06:11 am (UTC)Most people decide what is good and evil without religion, and generally just use religion to back up what they already think. You don't have to believe in god to think murder and stealing are wrong. They are wrong because they hurt people.
The idea that you need religion to be good is just not proven in any way. States with higher percentages of people who are regularly church-goers often have lower rates of crime, for instance. (Correlation not being cause-and-effect, but it's interesting nonetheless.)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-24 02:51 pm (UTC)hurt people as a group or people as individuals? millions of years of evolution and nearly the entire animal kingdom supports the former, via survival of the fittest, which would support things like eugenics.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-24 07:28 pm (UTC)But they've done some clever studies on this, asking people from differing parts of the world whether it's ethical to do this, or that, and they include some fairly complex ethical situations. (Usually, it would seem, involving trains and switches and people on the tracks and/or in trains.) And most folks, from all cultures, seem to agree on which situations are ethical and which aren't, which leads to the idea that we have a sort of instinctual sense of right and wrong.
If I walk over to my neighbor's apartment and shoot him in the face in cold blood, I can't think of anybody who would tell me that that's an okay thing to do. If I were to go over to said apartment and torture them for fun (and without their consent) the only folks who would think that's okay are sociopaths to start with and therefore have broken brains. Most people would (rightly) be appalled.
The idea that you can't be good without religion just isn't borne out in day-to-day reality. There are many countries (the Scandinavian ones come to mind) where very few people are religious, and yet they haven't dissolved into anarchy and violence, and instead they have some of the strongest welfare states on earth, where people gladly pay their taxes knowing that everyone will get health care, housing, and enough food.
To put it another way: if religion (and fear of divine punishment) are all that's keeping a person from rape and murder, I don't think that's someone I'd particularly trust or want to be around. Most of us don't rape and murder because we know it's wrong, not because we fear punishment, either civil or divine.
Eugenics was a horrible abuse of Darwin's ideas and has gone out of fashion for a reason. It was mostly an excuse for straight-up racism and hatred of disabled folks, and had little or no basis on genetics, which was still in its infancy.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-24 08:36 pm (UTC)what i'm trying to imply is that what you consider "instinctive" views on right and wrong or what others call "natural law" is the result of being made in the image of God, who defines justice. if we do not have some absolute basis for law but only a consensus opinion, then people who believe in crazy things like eugenics (or more modern ideas with the same basis) are not absolutely wrong, they are simply in an oppressed minority group.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-24 09:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-24 03:14 am (UTC)Oh, and for the record, for a long time the church had nothing to do with marriages. In the middle ages, marriage was a civil affair and didn't happen in the church at all. Everyone went to mass, the couple in question exchanged rings on the church's doorstep, done.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-24 05:17 am (UTC)to say that "the church had nothing to do with marriages...in the middle ages" is somewhat questionable as well. marriage has been a sacrament of the roman catholic church near back to augustine in the fourth century. it certainly did not have all the religious trappings of many of today's ceremonies, but it was still an important religious activity that the church took very seriously. check out "marriage and the family in the middle ages" by frances and joseph gies.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-24 06:07 am (UTC)There's also some really really great stuff here about how the line in Leviticus is likely a mistranslation as well: http://www.thegodarticle.com/15/post/2012/05/who-says-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html Ancient Hebrew is complicated, yo.
All reading of the Bible requires exegesis, and particular sections of the Bible that lead to huge decisions (for instance, whether or not homosexuality is a sin, which has an obviously large effect on people's lives) should be read and interpreted even more carefully than most.
I mean, a "natural reading" of the Bible leaves a lot of justifications for slavery right there in the New Testament.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-24 02:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-24 07:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-24 09:18 pm (UTC)all scripture is "God-breathed" and "inspired by the Holy Ghost." much of it takes study to understand, as we have said, and other parts are beyond most understanding, but that does not mean that God made mistakes (or people "misheard" Him) when He was inspiring people to write it.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 01:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 01:04 am (UTC)Seriously I cannot even begin to 'get' racist mindsets.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 01:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 02:10 am (UTC)The part about this ad that really gets me is that they don't even bother trying to explain why integration is bad or segregation good. Just shows a photo with mixed races in a classroom as an example of something horrible. I don't get it.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-24 02:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-24 03:09 am (UTC)Part of me is always thinking, "I just don't get it," and the other part is thinking, "That's probably a good thing."
no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 02:24 am (UTC)1) "Chairman, Democratic Party of Georgia" ...
2) Brown v Board of Education is coming, in 4 years. Oh you guys are not gonna like that at all!
3) I used to live there and the underlying tension in this is very very much alive today -- I don't mean exactly the racism, but there's this highway that makes a complete circle around Atlanta and it's like the starkest dividing line of attitudes and politics. They call it ITP and OTP (in/outside the perimeter). Marietta is an OTP suburb of Atlanta. People tend to view the 'other' side of the line as a bunch of backward racist rednecks living in a cultural wasteland vs a bunch gay liberals and criminals living in a total war zone. Neither of these are entirely accurate, but the city of Atlanta is definitely a liberal oasis in the middle of a very conservative place.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 11:31 pm (UTC)I stumbled upon some interesting remembrances and history of this period recently. Here's a page from an African-American teacher hired by Fairfax County in 1954 (http://www.yetmo.com/DESEG.htm) who relates how integration proceeded, and a history of African-American education (http://www.historicfairfax.org/HFCI41.pdf) in the town of Fairfax reaching back to the 1870s.