"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Martin Luther King
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Martin Luther King
I believe that we moved a great deal closer to realizing that sentiment. We will achieve it when pundits and pollsters no longer feel compelled to break down voting trends by race, gender or age.
I think we are very close. We have made huge strides in the last 20 years. There will always be some pockets of hatred for something for whatever reason. But overall, I am very proud of where we have come and where we are headed.
We are getting there, there have been huge strides in the past 40 or 50 years. I hope that somewhere in the future that the color of someone's skin will matter no more then the color of someone's eyes or hair.
The fact that everyone is making a huge deal out of Obama being black means that we aren't there yet. But we are getting closer. :)
As long as there are differences there ill be those who conciously or unconciously judge others because of them. So that means there will never be a time when racism is truely abolished. Part of it is human nature, part is fear, distrust of the unknown. I know someone who distrusts all African americans and yet has never had an unfortunate experience nor ever even known a person of color personally. Geeesh! Yep, this election has provn that there are a majority of people in this country who do not see color when they look at a person or if they do it is not of any importance. I did not vote democratic but I think this is going to be an interesting next for years. One thing is certain, though racism will always exist, those that exist to pimp it all the time and throw that card down will have to reconsider their issues. A big part of your "race war" is no longer valid.
Really good to see QD01 back.
It's folly to even have that kind of dream, Martin.
Of course we'll never achieve it.
Nope. Sadly I saw this today on a bathroom wall in a Panda Express in Maricopa, AZ:
f**k that n****r president!
And judging by some of the posts I've seen from other OptiBoarders (from whom I would have expected better), enduring prejudice based on the color of skin is unfortunately still a fact of life.
However I believe what cocoisland58 said. Prejudice is inherent to the human condition and is very unlikely to disappear soon.
On the bright side though, I can say with much pride that although we in the U.S. get criticized by the rest of the world for our 'racism' there is no other major country in the world that is as diverse and accepting (overall) as the America. We have a unique history built on immigration (some voluntary and some not) that no other country can match which has not only brought racial prejudices to the forefront but has forced us to confront these issues in a way that no other country has. And let's be honest - only in the USA could a half-black/half-white man named Barack Hussein Obama be elected President. Whether we voted for him or not, this should be a source of pride for all of us. It happened here. It could not have happened anywhere else. Once again we lead by example.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
Nope. there will always be those that judge. Whether it be because of the color of ones skin, their gender, length of their hair, or their age.
Colour of the skin, maybe.
But keep in mind something. The day that 65 million Americans voted in Obama as the first black US President, was the same date that three States voted in favour of removing rights for gay couples. Those voters not only denied access to that right, but told every gay couple married under the law (including by churches) that their loving marriage is invalid. Could you imagine that? Telling someone that who they have committed the rest of their life to and love LEGALLY, that it is not valid?
Yesterday afternoon, "Guess Whose Coming for Dinner" was on tv. One of the greatest films ever. I remember one line that stood out. It was when Sidney Portier's father told him that what he is planning on doing (marry a white girl) will be illegal in 16 or 17 States.
I just looked up the word marriage. Even the dictionarys have ammended the meaning. Wikipedias meaning is currently under dispute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
Or we could strip 'marriage' of having any legal context or meaning. That would be fair since what people really are trying to do is push their religious views on everyone else and that is strictly forbidden by the Constitution.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
That would be the ideal to strive for. "Marriage" can only be attained through the state, yet has such deep religious and social connotations attached to it that it blinds people into incorrectly viewing it in terms of their religion. One day, the states and their laws will be truly secular, and people who think a union is only suited to a man and woman will no longer be able to keep others from enjoying the legal benefits granted by (what should be at any rate) a totally secular state.
I voted "NO" on the amendment that was passed here in Florida, as "marriage" between a gay couple is not legally recognized here anyway. But special interest groups fought to further strengthen this utterly redundant piece of legislation, so now it is legally defined our state constitution as being between one man and one woman. I was rather disgusted at how many bigots make up the state, some 60% were in favor of adding the amendment. As Florida can be very gay-friendly, I'm hoping that some time in the forseeable future, that law can get overturned.
if my daughter grows up to be gay, she should have EVERY right to get married. The wave of discrimination against the last group it's ok to be openly bigoted against disgusts me.
www.opticaljedi.com
www.facebook.com/opticaljedi
www.twitter.com/opticaljedi
__________________________________
Prognatus ex Alchemy ad Diligo
Eliza Joy Martius VIII MMVIII
No, people should accept marriage.
Again, I bring up the point that traditionally, marriage was between two people of the same race. It was even illegal in many States and probably countries for that to be broken.
Additionally, and here is the kicker, a right got taken away from its own citizens and churches (since these churches agreed to perform gay marriages, and the government can create rules where churches are free to make their own decision on that basis).
many of those people in Calfornia that supported Prop 8 were blatantly lied to regarding what the prop was for.
Seems like a cheap win for the religious crowd. At least those heathens were thruthful
lied and bought out...not to mention that voting Yes was for removing rights. You know that confused at least a handful of voters and with a vote that close...
www.opticaljedi.com
www.facebook.com/opticaljedi
www.twitter.com/opticaljedi
__________________________________
Prognatus ex Alchemy ad Diligo
Eliza Joy Martius VIII MMVIII
Are you serious?
1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
We are a nation of Law, not a Theocracy. That is pretty clear, not only by a direct reading of the Constitution (can you say 'Strict Constructionist'?) but also by the writings of the founding father's as well as subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
Let's summarize:
1. The only objections to gay marriage are religious. (One could argue even that is dubious since Jesus himself had more to say about the evils of being rich than he said about homosexuality, but I'm not going to get into that. I suggest reading Bishop John Spong's books for a thorough study and understanding of what the Bible really does say about homosexuality.)
2. We are not a theocracy, we are a nation of laws - laws that are specifically designed to protect all citizens against the tyranny of the majority.
3. So if Marriage is a 'religious' institution, then the Government has no business being involved in it. Let the Churches have it. But it should not infer any legal status or rights.
Bottom line: If Marriage is a religious institution, then Government should not be involved. If it is not a religious institution, then religion should have no say in defining it.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks