HATE AMERICA?

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The moderates did not say whether they held liberal views or not.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This is incorrect. When polls are done, those identifying themselves as moderates are asked about their views. Liberals consistantly outnumber conservatives, among journalists, by a 4:1 margin or more. So if 69% of journalists believe FOXNews has a conservative bias, that pretty much makes them all liberals.

[Dr. Shane]

I agree, Brother McQueen. This grabbed my attention because it was Blair stating that he believed the BBC was broadcasting hate for America. I imagine that if President Bush made a simular statement about an American network broadcastig hate for France or Islam, it would also be worthwhile discussing.

[Naomi]

Robert said:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

That is what is wrong with America....If she can "condone" & justify slavery for 200 years what else will she condone in the name of profits for corporate America?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

My :2cents:

Robert,

Have you ever met someone who was a slave? Historically, what other cultures have praticed slavery?

Have you or your family received benefit from living in America ... like being able to speak out against her at will? Or, having the choice of how and where you wish to live? If you don't approve of her you even have the choice of going to another country to live. We all have choices.

Also please clarify: Are you referring to America or just the US?

Whatever: Is America or the US more "wrong" more corrupt, historically less God fearing, does she pratice less social conscienous behaviour than other countries, governemnts, cultures? Because I am unclear if you are taking about the Americas or the US I must assume it is all of the Americas, have they been guilty of more inhuman actions than other governments and peoples throughout history?

When all the people, in all the continents, in all the countries on planet earth, in their personal, private and secret life (and thoughts) refuse to condone any evil or ill will, for any reason ... not just profits but for personal reasons, ego's etc ... we will see perfection in all governments.

{ are you impressed that the entire paragraph has only one sentence? That one person could so efficiently manage to completely mess up proper grammar?} <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/blink.gif" alt="" />

All I am trying to say is there are no degrees of sin, no degrees of social injustice and nothing is perfect. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Here again, we have choices; we always dewell on what is/has been wrong and continue to focus on the faults. When we do this we will likely fail to see what is good and be able to build upon the good. You know, kinda like when you always find fault with your spouse until you no longer can remember what was good about them.

On <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/soapbox.gif" alt="" /> History is history, people are people, governments are governments dictated primarily by the majority (even socialist governments) how we react and what we choose to do concerning conditions outside of our control is our choice. Off <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/soapbox.gif" alt="" />

Naomi

[there buster]

Quote:

---

It was practiced approximately 200 years.... Yes, 200 years. Did "America" declare that "All men are created equal"? Yes, then why slavery?

---

Such ignorance of history is breathtaking. Name anywhere that slavery was NOT practiced in 1776.

Slavery was the universal practice of mankind until it was banned. England and the U.S. were in the forefront of that movement.

The founders considered banning slavery, but it was still legal in England in 1776, and the U.S. could not have been formed without that compromise. To think yourself superior to those people because they couldn't find a way out of the problem is to think yourself superior to the apostle Paul, who took slavery for granted.

Slavery is still practiced today in parts of Africa.

To make the statement that "all men are created equal" was so radical at the time as to be almost unbelievable. That was a time of "nobles" and "commoners," whose status was fixed by birth.

Serfs still belonged to the land in parts of Europe almost until the 20th century.

Browning wrote, "A man's reach should esceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for." Indeed, that impulse to reach farther, to aspire to be better, was behind the declaration that "all men are created equal." But you condemn them because they could not yet grasp what they aspired to?

Try that with children, and you'll have children that will never learn much. Ditto with societies. Moral idiots continually condemn the U.S. because it cannot live up to its aspirations. How ignorant! You might as well praise the Belgians, whose record in colonial Africa is still causing havoc, but at least they never aspired to more.

By that logic, a gangster who's honest about his ambitions to rob and kill is morally superior to a striving Christian who falls short.

[Robert]

Are you done? It's my turn to rant.....

My point is that America [people, governments, etc] doesn't make America a Christian nation. God resides here because His people reside here....

This nation [our government] is special, yet common. It is different, but yet it belongs to "the kingdoms of this world". It seems Christ like, but the future will reveal that it is a sham.

Yes, the framers of our constitution had God in mind. As long as our government adheres to those principles God will reside...but when they turn on the people He will abandon it.

As to slavery...corporate America is now taking advantage of the Chinese/Hispanics (just to name a few). It's called unfair trade....

Who makes the laws that allow the raping of other races outside our country? Our boys up in Washington (of couse some are against it)....

Nothing much has changed....We use slave labor from over seas [sweat shops/unfair labor, etc]....Think about that the next time you shop at Wal-Mart (and I don't). But I am sure that something I buy comes from someone being done dirty....

Anyway, why does our government allow it?

Answer: $$$$

The same was true in the days of slavery....So please don't be too patriotic....After all the Bible states: "They [the faithful heros] admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth."

[Neil D]

[:"blue"]Shifting Demographic Tides

More generally, there is evidence that the

major events of recent years — from

September 11 to the war in Iraq and the

presidential election — have stemmed the

decline in the public’s news interest. Most

Americans say they are spending more

time with the news now than in 2000,

though people are still devoting less time

to the news than they did a decade ago.

But young people are conspicuous

exceptions to this trend. Those ages 18 to

24 are not spending any more time with

the news than they did in 2000 — despite

the events of the last four years — and are

spending much less time than they did a

decade ago.

In that regard, traditional news outlets are

confronting a potentially devastating

demographic tide. Young people read

newspapers and watch TV news — network

and cable — at far lower rates than their

elders. And the situation is not much better

among the not so young. Just 26% of

people in their 30s and 40s regularly tune

in to the nightly network news, far below

the number of older Americans who

regularly watch network evening news. [/]

[:"blue"] Campaign News:

Broadcast Fading, Internet Rising

The 2004 presidential campaign provided

a window on the continuing evolution in

the public’s news consumption. Television

long has been the public’s primary source

for campaign news, and that remains the

case today. But in the last four years alone,

there have been significant changes in the

composition of the TV news audience.

Pew’s political news survey, conducted in

January during the early stage of the

campaign, showed that both local and

network TV news lost considerable ground

compared with 2000, while cable news

made modest gains. Among several key

demographic groups — young people,

college graduates and wealthy Americans

— cable emerged as the leading source for

campaign news.

But a more important story from last year’s

campaign was the emergence of the

internet as a major source of election news

and information. The campaign news

survey showed that online news had

achieved parity with such traditional election

news mainstays as public television

broadcasts, Sunday morning news

programs and weekly newsmagazines.

A Pew post-election survey confirmed the

growing importance of the internet, even

as it also showed a broader uptick in

political news consumption. Compared

with 2000, more voters said they relied on

television, newspapers and radio as the

main source for campaign news —

reflecting the heightened interest in the

2004 campaign compared with the

election of four years earlier. [/]

So, are we dumbing down the young with the primary sources of news as cable and the internet?

[:"blue"] The public also thinks the news media lack compassion for the subjects of their

stories. A majority of the public — 56% — believes news organizations do not care

about the people they report on, up from 48% in 1985. Moreover, two thirds now

say news organizations pay too much attention to bad news — an all-time high.

While Americans have become more critical of press practices, many also have lost

respect for the basic values of the news media. The number saying the press is immoral, rather than moral, has more than doubled since the mid-1980s, from 13% to 32%. There has been a comparable rise in the percentage who view the

press as unprofessional. [/]

Is the press immoral or amoral in your view? And what about professionalizm, is the press more professional or less professional? How would you determine if a poticular medai outlet as "professional"?

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

All Britains dont have tea at four?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

They dont? Well phooey!

[lazarus]

Slavery was still practiced in America while men pontificated about freedom and liberty because they were hypocrites and did not view the black man as a full human being. They were blind to their own hypocrisy.

Segregation was an integral part of American life in the 1960/70 in America because many whites were still hypocrites. They honored God with their lips but their hearts were far from God.

Quote:

---

Slavery is still practiced today in parts of Africa.

---

Where is slavery in Africa practiced openly as it was in many parts of Europe and America? Don't dare make the rediculous comparison between underground slavery that happens now with open slavery that was practiced in years gone by sanctioned by governments practiced by priests and politicans.

If white America was truely striving to give freedon to all men, why did it take the turmoil of the 1960's to bring it about. Freedom had to be WRENCHED from the White mans hands

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

If America had a touch more humility when declaring its belief in feedom them perhaps more of the peoples of the world would listen

[Derrell M]

Not that I've made any study of it, but I've found it interesting that the Bible simply doesn't seem to condemn slavery, considering that Hebrews wrote the Bible, and they were so often slaves. The Africans enslaved them in Egypt, the babylonians enslaved them in Babylon, the Syrians next door enslaved them, and many were enslaved by the Greeks, the Phoenicians, other local nations, and the Romans. All this yet they never outright declared slavery to be a sin, or even a crime in the Bible. (To my knowledge)

I would think that the decendants of the more recent African and Chinese slaves would happily condemn slavery as a sin, so why didn't the people who wrote the Bible? In the 635 laws given in the books of Moses (according to Maimonides), I don't recall ever seeing one that forbids slavery, and they were still smarting from the lashes of their slavemasters from Egypt/North Africa when those books were written.

The concept of owning people seems so morally loathsome and contrary to Christianity... this is just one of those things that totally mystifies me.

[there buster]

Post deleted by Amelia

[lazarus]

This slavery thing is really off topic isn't it?...anyway

"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor

"[slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Where is slavery in Africa practiced openly as it was in many parts of Europe and America? Don't dare make the rediculous comparison between underground slavery that happens now with open slavery that was practiced in years gone by sanctioned by governments practiced by priests and politicans.

---

Slavery is still practiced in Africa by Africans. Sorry if that doesn't match your worldview.

If you look at history, you will see that slavery was the norm for millenia until Britain and the US decided, based on Christian principles, that it should be abolished. If it were up to, say, the French and the Belgians, it would probably still be the norm.

Racial prejudice is still sanctioned in a number of countries around the world, for example Japan. America has flaws, but singling it out for condemnation is either perverse or stupid.

[there buster]

I can find as many quotations by 19th century Americans demanding abolition.

Selective quotation of one side of the issue doesn't represent the reality.

As Walter Williams says, he's thankful his ancestors were brought here as slaves. If it were not true, he would still be living in Africa.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Where is slavery in Africa practiced openly as it was in many parts of Europe and America?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Not only is it practiced in GHANA, there are Christian organizations that buy slaves in order to give them their freedom.

Slavery was not always practiced in all of the US. There were many states that forbid slavery from the very beginning. Nor did segregation continue until the 1960s throughout the US. That practice was limited to the southern states. AND IT IS ALL HISTORY. These conditions have been corrected by over 30 years of affirmative action.

Drug abuse and premarital sex (resulting in single mothers and deadbeat dads) are the issues that hold much of the black population back in the US. Rev. Jesse Jackson is known for saying "We got free and foolish".

Please remind what this has to do with a bias press?

[lazarus]

Ed Dickerson said:

Quote:

---

Slavery is still practiced in Africa by Africans.

---

I note that you were not able to answer my question. I am not sure whether you were not able to or if you are still searching for a country. I eagerly await your answer. May I suggest Burma....ooops thats not in Africa

Did your prejudice against the French blind you to the fact that, France first abolished slavery in 1794! Napoleon reinstituted it in 1802 and then finally ending it in 1848. Obviously the facts of history do not fit YOUR world view.

I do agree however that this is monsterously off topic!

America is not being picked on here. There just an effort to place the USA's declarations about freedom and democracy in context. I don't recal that the UK had any Jim Crow laws. I don't recall that Black British schoolboys had to drink from separate water fountains in the 1960's.

[Derrell M]

Quote:

---

I do agree however that this is monsterously off topic!

---

Definitely!

However, this is a topic that seems to demand some discussion. For some people who might be questioning the validity of the Bible (and many other things), this might be a key topic. Once again, why in tarnation is slavery not labeled a sin? I've heard the explanations that cite culture, but that does not hold water in my book. If the Bible was divinely inspired, it would not be culture that determined what was written, but the policies of the god who is supposed to have spoken the words.

So, please... why? Lazarus? Ed? Robert?

[Dr. Shane]

I haven't studied much about slavery outside of the US. However I have studied a lot about it as it was practiced in the US. In the areas of the US that allowed slavery, they did not adhere to the Biblical instruction given to slave owners. Many slave owners did not even allow their slaves to learn about or practice any form of religion.

I will start a new thread on this topic.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Slavery was still practiced in America while men pontificated about freedom and liberty because they were hypocrites and did not view the black man as a full human being. They were blind to their own hypocrisy.

---

Very true....

I see those issues as not so much black and white, but those in power taking advantage for monetary gain. As I stated, that’s going on now, but to a lesser degree.

If the colors had been reversed prior to the practice of slavery and given the same circumstances, black Americans would have enslaved white Africans. It's a human problem....All men share the same egocentric, self-loving natures.

However, it was white America [at that time] that played the hypocrite. That just goes to show you that no matter how much you dress up human nature with flowery words [as in "all men are created equal"] it, human nature, will always justify itself in the end.

Take the Sunday laws....I don't care what the Supreme Court says - they are unconstitutional. Again, they justify this law by calling it "family day". Likewise, I am sure the slave masters justified themselves by thinking, "I treat my slaves well….Besides, the Bible okays it!”

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I note that you were not able to answer my question. I am not sure whether you were not able to or if you are still searching for a country.

---

If you look at French behavior in their colonies, you will find their behavior reprehensible. You might note that 1794 and 1848 were both aberrational governments in France. I'm not prejudiced against the French and Belgians, their history speaks for itself.

The Belgians are the cause of the hutu and tutsi divisions in Rwanda, for example. Watch the film, "Hotel Rwanda." I had friends who were there at the time. They still don't want to talk about it.

And no, it's not so off topic. People use America's failures to perfectly reflect the ideals they aspire to as reasons to trash America. But reprehensible behavior by countries that don't aspire to anything more than national greed often goes without comment. Sudan comes to mind. And heaven forbid we should mention Robert Mugabe, the thug running Zimbabwe.

One is hard pressed to find a country in sub-Saharan Africa that isn't a basket case. But I'm sure we don't want to talk about that.

[Robert]

Post deleted by Amelia

[Derrell M]

A post by Aldona from a Katrina forum.

Quote:

---

From a commentary on an international current affairs website... (by a British author):

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the developing world, poor people have learned to cope with what is lacking in their lives - not always successfully, it is true, but they have not yet learned the superior wisdom of the West, that nothing can be done without money. This is why the urban poor in Dhaka, Mumbai, Nairobi and Lagos still build their own shelters, create their own livelihoods, seek out their own fuel and grow food on any small parcel of land they can find.

But it is at times of catastrophic suffering and loss that the difference is most visible. That people in New Orleans left bodies unattended in the putrid waters of the Gulf and plundered the dispossessed is shocking and incomprehensible to the poor of India, Bangladesh or Africa. For when disaster strikes in the poor world - as it so regularly does - people do not loot and steal. They do not fire guns at rescue helicopters. They do not rob the hospitals of their drugs. They do not barricade themselves inside their rough shelters and write in white paint on their walls, Loot and Be Shot. The instinctive response of the poor in the 'underdeveloped' world is to succour those weaker than themselves, to share with them such meagre resources as they possess, to show a fundamental solidarity: the dereliction of others is not seen as an opportunity for gain. This is why they feel a bewildered compassion for the destructive rage of deprivation in the US.

Some commentators in America described scenes in New Orleans as 'reminiscent of the Third World.' They could not have been more wrong. This was an entirely 'First World' phenomenon: gun battles between looters and the National Guard, who operate a shoot-to-kill policy against predators, bloated corpses abandoned on riverbanks and sidewalks, or simply floating, unclaimed on the toxic flood - these are scenes which occur only in the lands of privilege.

This is what the poor of India and all the other hopeful countries of the world have been taught to envy and to long for. This is the supreme achievement of the richest societies the world has ever known; and it is the model, not merely preached, but actually imposed by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and the governments of the G8. That they are in no position to tell anyone else what to do is the enduring lesson from the disaster which has befallen, not merely Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama, but American society itself, as it has demonstrated to the world its indifference towards those for whom the designation 'loser', 'no-hoper', 'failure' is applied as a stigma of moral, as well as material, incapacity.

It has long been clear that the West could easily provide a comfortable sufficiency for all the people of its own societies, if it chose to do so. It does not, for the simple reason that the fate of the poor must be maintained, as a warning and example to all who might otherwise be tempted to drop out, to relax their vigilance, to withdraw from the competitive ethos that drives people on to accumulate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

[there buster]

Quote:

---

It has long been clear that the West could easily provide a comfortable sufficiency for all the people of its own societies, if it chose to do so. It does not, for the simple reason that the fate of the poor must be maintained, as a warning and example to all who might otherwise be tempted to drop out, to relax their vigilance, to withdraw from the competitive ethos that drives people on to accumulate.

---

I'm always amazed when people appear to take such statements seriously.

[Robert]

[Paul Beach]

Post deleted by Amelia

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It has long been clear that the West could easily provide a comfortable sufficiency for all the people of its own societies, if it chose to do so. It does not, for the simple reason that the fate of the poor must be maintained, as a warning and example to all who might otherwise be tempted to drop out, to relax their vigilance, to withdraw from the competitive ethos that drives people on to accumulate.

---

I'm always amazed when people appear to take such statements seriously.

---

I am always amazed when people make such statements seriously.

/Bevin