Monday, July 12, 2010

Racism, or Not Racism, That Is The Question

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Members of the human species have this interesting tendency to group together with those that share similar traits, beliefs, or anything else we can find in common. I suppose that natural preference for the familiar can be considered as one of the factors behind the old saying, "birds of a feather flock together."

Regardless of the morality of it all, the fact is there are white neighborhoods, black neighborhoods, Hispanic neighborhoods, Asian neighborhoods, gay communities, Muslim communities, Mormon communities, Italian communities, Russian communities, et cetera. Sure, there are some neighborhoods that are mixed, or there are some members of groups that are not members of the majority in some neighborhoods, but overall, we tend to live, work, and play with folks we share commonalities with.

By choosing to congregate with those more like ourselves, we are technically discriminating against those that do not share the same traits, or beliefs. We are told, however, that being exclusive like that is a bad thing. In fact, recently the Supreme Court ruled that school clubs cannot do such a thing, forcing through the opinions of a bunch of judicial activists in black robes that Christian clubs on campus cannot only accept Christians as members of the clubs. Homosexuals, no matter how flaming, must be allowed into the club as well. The Supreme Court decision was unconstitutional because the federal government is not given constitutional powers over such an issue, but that is a discussion for another day.

On the surface one wonders why a member of the gay community would wish to hang around with a bunch of Christian folks they consider to be haters in the first place. Then I realize that like Obama's liberal Chicago politics, Islam, and other ideologies that prefer to force themselves upon others, the homosexuals sued with the intent to disrupt, divide, and conquer those they determine to be their enemy. Now, because of the decision of the courts, groups must allow even leadership positions in the organization to be given to those who disagree with its statement of faith or belief.

And the courts fell for the tactic, and the liberal left is erroneously calling this a triumph for freedom.

One must ask, if this had been a pro-gay club, and Christians had been demanding to be a part of the club and to be allowed leadership positions, would the court have ruled identically?

What about MEChA? Will the Hispanic club allow into its ranks non-Latinos, and on top of that welcome into its ranks people who disagree with the belief system of the club? Should the courts force MEChA to allow whites, for example, who are in full agreement with Arizona's immigration laws into the club, and for those same anti-illegal alien people to be enabled to hold leadership positions in MEChA?

In other words, should we be able to choose who we assemble with, and who shall lead our organizations, based on the similarities we share in the group? Or should we be forced by the courts to allow into our midst those we have little, or nothing, in common with?

Discrimination. The word rises to the top again. We can't discriminate, otherwise, we are told, we are "haters."

But don't we discriminate on a daily basis? Do we not choose which foods to eat, therefore discriminating against the other foods? Do we not choose which store to shop in, therefore discriminating against the other stores? When I married my wife, did I not discriminate against other women, taking away opportunity should they desire to pursue it?

Obviously, we need to have a little common sense when it comes to our day to day dealings with others. On a personal basis if I choose to only hang out with conservative Christians that study the Constitution as I do, that should be my own choice - but it would not be reasonable for me to demand that in my neighborhood only conservative Christian Constitutionalists can use the drinking fountain.

Walter E. Williams, in a column he wrote on this topic, wrote: "I've sometimes asked students if they believe in equal opportunity in employment. Invariably, they answer yes. Then I ask them, when they graduate, whether they plan to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them. Most often they answer no; they plan to discriminate against certain employers. Then I ask them, if they're not going to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them, what's fair about requiring an employer to give them an equal opportunity to be hired?"

Would it seem fair that in our lives there is some discrimination that is fine, and others that isn't?

In some cases, in fact, outlawing discrimination would be detrimental to society.

Once again, I must refer back to Walter E. Williams, and his article regarding discrimination. He wrote: "In other words, if high-IQ people were forced to select low-IQ mates, high-income people forced to select low-income mates, and highly educated people forced to select lowly educated mates, there would be greater social equality. While there would be greater social equality, the divorce rate would soar since gross dissimilarities would make for conflict.

"Common sense suggests that not all discrimination should be eliminated, so the question is, what kind of discrimination should be permitted? I'm guessing the answer depends on one's values for freedom of association, keeping in mind freedom of association implies freedom not to associate."

So personal choice equals freedom, as long as that freedom is also tempered with responsibility.

One must ask, then, where is that line of responsibility? When does personal discriminations become unhealthy societal attitudes? And is it ever okay to discriminate in one direction, but not the other?

The last question I asked deals with double standards. I suppose a better way to understand the question is to illustrate what I mean with examples, and I will use recent news items to show what I mean.

In Will County, Illinois, the county Election Board is planning on keeping Republican African-American mother Cedra Crenshaw off the ballot this November in her state senate race against Democrat A. J. Wilhelmi. The reasoning does not include her eligibility for she has gathered more than enough signatures. They went after technicalities. In other words, the goal was to keep her off the ballot for the sake of keeping her off the ballot.

The law being used is one designed to keep third party candidates off the ballot, and since Cedra joined the race after the primaries, they claimed she fell within the purview of the law. As a result, with a 2-1 election board ruling, the African-American Republican will not be on the ballot, and the well-connected Chicago Democrat will run unopposed, and will not be held accountable to the voters.

Have you heard about this situation in the main-extreme media? Would you have if it had been a well-connected Republican running unopposed, and the one kicked off the ballot was a black Democrat?

I venture to say, "Yes." And, the Democrat would still be on the ballot if that were the case.

Double-standard.

How about Senator Robert Byrd's choice of joining the Klu Klux Klan? While speaking at Byrd's funeral former president Bill Clinton brushed off Byrd's KKK years as if they were just a short misstep in the man's life, and that it was okay because he did it in order to win an election. Remember, Bill Clinton is the same guy that said to Ted Kennedy in reference to Obama: "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee."

Yet there has been only minor comments about Clinton's obviously racial remarks.

But what if a Republican in the Senate right now had spent time in the KKK, and like Byrd had risen to the level of leadership in the organization, and then a fellow Republican in a speech said it was okay because he needed to do such a thing to get elected? What would have been the level of outrage? How would the media have reported it? Would the entire Republican Party, based on that comment, be labeled as a racist party?

Once again, a double-standard exists.

Since President Obama is half-black, the mere disagreement with him by those that are not raging liberals draws accusation of racism. Is that a reasonable assessment? If, every time someone not white disagreed with George W. Bush, and the Republican followers proclaimed that those folks only felt that way because Bush is white, what do you think the response would be?

Claiming that disagreement with Bush is racist is obviously idiotic, but why shouldn't it also be an idiotic claim when the claim is made by Obama supporters against those who disagree with Barry?

Somehow, in the minds of the accusers, such a claim is justified.

Yet another double-standard.

Finally, what about the New Black Panthers case regarding voter intimidation? Were the members of the group justified in intimidating voters? What if it had been members of a white supremacy group in a black neighborhood saying the kinds of things the Black Panthers were saying?

And how is it that the President of the United States and the Department of Justice, after the Black Panthers are convicted, can drop the charges just prior to sentencing? Would that have been acceptable by a white president for a group with a known racist history against blacks?

Did the Department of Justice drop the case as a default mechanism based on the racial makeup of the parties involved? Are we seeing the current party in power playing racial politics, rather than ensuring Americans receive equal protection of the law? Christian Adams, the DOJ whistleblower said that "the DOJ will not prosecute voting rights cases if the defendant is black and the victim is white."

Is that not a double-standard? Or is it a liberal left justification in line with the erroneous belief that only whites can be racist?

So what we are being told by today's society is that only white, Christian heterosexuals can be racist bigots. Everyone else is free to act as they wish.

Hardly in line with Dr. Martin Luther King's dream of people being judged by their strength in character, isn't it?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Christian Legal Society Loses in Supreme Court Case - Christianity Today

What Is Discrimination - Capitalism Magazine

Illinois Democrats to Keep Black Republican off Ballot in November - Part-Time Pundit

Candidate from Bolingbrook won't be on ballot - The Bolingbrook Sun

Clinton says Byrd joined KKK to help him get elected - The Hill

Sharpton: Clinton 'Coffee' Remark About Obama 'Disturbing' - Fox News

Is Disagreement With Obama Racism? - Townhall, Walter E. Williams

Whitewashing Black Racism - Townhall, Michelle Malkin

The New Black Panthers, and Eric Holder… - American and Proud

Rep. Steve King: ‘Dept. of Justice Playing Racial Politics - Human Events

Illegal alien voters ignored by Justice Department, says whistleblower - Examiner

No comments: