Equal justice
A letter writer who disagreed with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's articulation of our governmental policy opposing bias against homosexuals in our international relations used Scripture to condemn the administration ("Stand up and fight," Dec. 12). The writer needs to be reminded that equal justice under the law is the bedrock upon which our system is grounded. This principle is absolute: Every citizen must be entitled to the same rights. This means no exceptions for gender, race, financial condition, intelligence or mental defect, sexual orientation, religion or non-religion, criminality or uprightness.
Sometimes we may find it hard to extend these basic rights to others with whom we disagree or even despise, but our judicial system, from lowest to highest, has been charged with ensuring these basic legal rights.
The reader should remember that, historically, terrible problems have arisen when we have permitted exceptions, when we have denied rights to some on the basis of their race or gender or religion. So it is entirely consistent for our government's international policy to oppose bias.
Equal justice under the law may be the greatest political gift — hard fought and painfully learned — that we can offer the rest of the world.
HAYES McNEILL
Winston-Salem
Civil discourse
In reply to the Dec. 10 letter "Rude liberals," I am sure that we liberals are sometimes rude, certainly sarcastic at times. However, to suggest that we have a corner on saying mean and cruel things and that this is never done by conservatives, is, quite frankly, not true.
Anyone who has ever listened to Rush Limbaugh surely knows that his program is based on making outrageous remarks; that is how he gains listeners. He once said that liberals wouldn't care if Casey Anthony's child had died in the womb. That is not just mean; that is an evil remark. The title of one of Glenn Beck's books is "Arguing With Idiots." Sean Hannity said, "If we get rid of liberals, we solve our problems." So I would definitely say that some conservatives are cruel and mean-spirited.
In 2006, Ann Coulter joked, "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee." It's hard to forget Sarah Palin's crosshairs over Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' congressional district. And sadly, we remember the murder of doctors who performed abortions as well as the attacks on the offices of Planned Parenthood.
No, liberals do not have a corner on rudeness. I would suggest that if we all took a few steps back and engaged in more civil exchanges, our country could move forward rather than continue on this contentious course. But that will not happen as long as we incite violence, refuse to compromise and, yes, call each other names.
JO ANN MOUNT
Winston-Salem
A free country
I applaud Lowe's CEO Robert Niblock for standing up for what he and his company believe they should or should not endorse ("Lowe's taking heat for pulling commercials," Dec. 15). We still live in a free country, where we have the liberty to support or not support anything we choose. To be pressured into supporting a group or movement by others or for fear of being attacked by boycotts or labeled as hateful or worse is simply wrong and shallow-minded.
We have the right to support financially any cause we choose and should not be forced into doing so for fear of offending someone who shares a different opinion. If we were to boycott those who threaten to boycott someone or something because we share different feelings or opinions on such causes, then everyone would boycott everything.
Not everyone feels the same about every cause or movement, and they should feel free to express themselves without fear of being labeled by the shallow-minded people who do just that.
JIM RHYNE
Winston-Salem
The Pledge of Allegiance
In reply to the Dec. 13 front-page story about the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School Board meeting during which changes to the Pledge of Allegiance policy were to be discussed: The North Forsyth High School teacher and veteran in the story was quoted at the end of the article as having invited the student, who did not want to stand for the pledge, and his mother to accompany him on a Veterans Day trip to a local American Legion "to express your views to the many veterans who will be there." As a veteran, I can assure you that my reply would not be politically correct.
Various laws can be enacted to purportedly shape and control behavior, however they will do nothing to remedy a lack of respect.
RICHARD DAY
Lexington
Liberal Hate: Tactics and methods used by liberals in order to suppress conservative speech
ReplyDeleteI think it was good that a lot of readers got to experience what LaSombra did yesterday. It's a perfect example of liberal hate, and how liberals act and react to speech that they disagree with.
If you noticed, she first started off by wanting me to reveal my identity through a challenge in association with Rush's name calling. And when that didn't work, she decided to take that option and power away from me by revealing what she thought was my true identity. This is a typical hate reaction by liberals when they don't get their way. She didn't think about the potential consequences of her actions. Furthermore, she didn't care. Her hate for me and my conservative speech over rode any consideration for my safety, and my family's safety from other liberal haters.
What she thought she had done by revealing what she thought was my real name is to expose me to verbal ridcule and physical harm to the extent that I would quit posting.
The good thing about it is, now, I don't have to explain to the rest of you how liberals and gay and lesbian activists hate on people that disagree with their ideology. You witnessed it first hand.
The bad thing for LaSombra A/K/A Rielle, is that her tactics failed. I intend to continue to post in this forum.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKnock yourself out dude. If I were as obsessed with anal sex as you seem to be, I'd want to stay incognito too.
ReplyDeleteIf homosexual anal sex weren't in the news almost daily, I doubt I'd be discussing it so much.
ReplyDeleteDo you hate me too, Arthur?
If you want to 'front' your identity out on the world wide web, that's your right. I don't think it's someone else's right to do it as a method to intimidate, and stifle another person's opinions and free speech.
ReplyDeleteFWIW
Gay Marriage
ReplyDeleteIf gay marriage is a voter's primary issue in the 2012 election, then Newt Gingrich says it's perfectly okay not to vote for him in a would-be battle against President Obama.
Speaking in Oskaloosa, Iowa, Tuesday afternoon, Gingrich was confronted by a man who asked the former House speaker how he planned to engage with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender who agree with him on other issues, but not on Gingrich's opposition to same-sex marriage.
In a cordial exchange, Gingrich said on that issue, there's little room for engagement. The two then agreed to disagree.
Here's how the conversation went down:
Gingrich: "I think those for whom the only issue that really matters is the definition of marriage, I won't get their support. I accept that as reality. On the other hand, for those to whom it's not the central issue in their life, if they care about job creation, if they care about national security, if they care about a better future for the country at large, then I think I'll get their support."
Q: So what if it is the biggest issue?
Gingrich: Then I won't get their support.
Q: How do we engage if you're elected. Then what, what does that mean?
Gingrich: Well then you engage in every topic except that.
Q: Except it's most important (some crosstalk).
Gingrich: Well, if that's most important to you then you should be for Obama.
Q: I am, thank you (The two men shake hands).
Gingrich: It's perfectly legitimate. I think it's perfectly legitimate
Taken from a FoxNews article.
No, I don't know you. I do think you're very strange though...judging from what you write online, you've got more issues than Newsweek.
ReplyDeleteGood afternoon folks!
ReplyDeleteLTE 1: "...equal justice under the law is the bedrock upon which our system is grounded." - at least, in theory that's the way it's supposed to work, except US history has shown many cases where justice depended on color of skin, or money or other factors. As a secular nation, our govt policies should be defined by the Constitution instead of theological views.
LTE 2: Civil discourse would be the ideal, but it is difficult to achieve when there are so many TB's on both sides who see any deviation from their views as being anti-American heresy that must be destroyed.
LTE 3: Lowe's is free to select which programs they wish to purchase advertising time, but they handled this situation quite poorly. They should have either done their homework ahead of time to see if this show would be too controversial to advertise on, or wait until the show's end (early Jan IIRC) and simply not purchase any space for any future seasons. Instead, it appears they did act in "fear of offending someone" thus creating a pr bust.
LTE 4: Stories about N. Korea's indoctination of its citizens into a cult of personality abound on the internet, yet there are some who insist on forcing US students to recite the PoA as a show of "patriotism". After a while, forced daily pledges, whether to a "Dear Leader" or to a flag, become as meaningful as saying "Here" when your name is called for the roll.
Some school districts in the U.S. are suggesting that they be allowed to openly discuss Gay, Lesbian...etc lifestyles in their classrooms. Do your think these school districts would allow my position on gay marriage and the gay lifestyle to be discussed? If you do, I've a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.
ReplyDeleteDotnet.....did you notice that the 1st letter writer added in some rights not contained in the Constitution?
ReplyDeleteSeymour's 'excited' gay son in photos. Something strange is going on..........
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thesuperficial.com/stephanie-seymours-son-im-gay-you-idiots-01-2011
"did you notice that the 1st letter writer added in some rights not contained in the Constitution? " - only right mentioned in LTE 1 is equal justice under the law. He also said everyone is entitled to the same basic rights, but he never expounds on what those basic rights are. So, no I did not notice Mr. McNeill adding any extra rights.
ReplyDelete"Every citizen must be entitled to the same rights. This means no exceptions for gender, race, financial condition, intelligence or mental defect, sexual orientation, religion or non-religion, criminality or uprightness."
ReplyDelete_______
I guess I read differently than you do, donet.
Arthur, have you ever thought it might be your element of comparison that might be just a little askew?
ReplyDeleteI always am amused by people who say "this isn't in the constitution" or "that isn't in the constitution". Their vast ignorance prevents them from knowing that most of the specific laws that we are governed by are not in the constitution either.
ReplyDeleteThat is because the constitution was intended to create a framework upon which to hang laws and interpretations of laws to fit the constantly evolving needs of the nation. The thousands of Federal court decisions, especially those of the US Supreme Court, have shaped the system by specifying and clarifying what is and what is not the law of the land.
That body of work is known as Constitutional law, and is the most important part of what some call "original intent", because the original intent of the founding fathers was to create a constitution that would survive the ages. They, and only they, could say today "mission accomplished".
Rush...what's scary is you actually think you know what you're talking about.
ReplyDelete