Life often imitates art and as I get ready to watch 24 on TV tonight, I thought about how the show has had 2 African-American presidents. The creators in Hollywood are willing to let an African-American lead the country and the latest has very little experience outside of being the first president’s brother and a friend of Jack.
Maybe, just maybe…..the next election will imitate the art of television.
Of course, that means as a country we will have to finally fully embrace the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. but maybe, just maybe we can look beyond color and look at people for who they are and not what they look like on the outside.
Hey, Seneca ~ I’ve decided not to go further OT in Southern Girl’s blog here… but I have a response, if you care to read it, on my own blog, here: http://onlysometimesclever.wordpress.com/2007/03/06/my-faith-gets-challenged/
Evolution is an important example of how belief and morality change over time.
Slavery, so obviously repulsive to us, at one time was readily accepted by Catholics and Protestants. It was sometime in the 1700’s that a Catholic priest in South America, horrified at the mistreatment of imported Africans, caused the Church to change its view.
The Church once would execute you if you believed the Earth circled the Sun instead of the Sun circling the Earth. The science became so irrefutable that the Church was forced to accept the scientific view.
Evolution is the same. In a hundred years it will be as difficult to find a Christian who doesn’t believe in evolution as it now is to find a Christian who believes the Sun circles the Earth.
Morality changes. Witness slavery.
The Church ALWAYS eventually accepts science (it make take 100 or 200 years), and finds a way to throw in something that makes science compatible with Church teachings.
Why is it important to you that evolution “does *NOT* mean that one was derived from the other”.
The Catholic Church accepts evolution. I’m sure some Protestant churches accept evolution. For some reason, an acceptance of evolution seems to challenge your faith.
Why?
Why are other Christians wrong when they accept it?
Well, I already feel badly for hijacking Southern Girl’s thread here, but I did want to point anyone who is interested in the compatibility of science and faith to a highly excellent website: http://www.reasons.org/ It is a site that is young earth creationist, and provides LOTS of information supporting that idea, both scientifically and biblically.
In short, I believe that mankind is similar through the ages because that’s the way God created us; He’s a consistent God, and the nature of man has been the same since creation. Just because one creature shares part of a DNA pattern w/ another creature does *NOT* mean that one was derived from the other.
And, Mr. Seneca, I still don’t agree with you on many (most) of your points (though McCain is my fave of the contenders, too), but I’m sorry for saying that I hope you don’t have kids. Writing that was unkind, and I should have kept it to myself.
To the Southern Girl,
I’m pretty much in agreement with your appraisal of the candidates.
If it wasn’t for his age and his strong support of the War, I would have said McCain was unbeatable.
But I would have been wrong, for Bush beat the McCain I describe “as being unbeatable”.
Obama does give us the magic and charm not seen since Kennedy. I agree what attracts me to him (he’s establishment) does hurt him elsewhere.
Guiliana’s personal life doesn’t bother me, but I see why it could bother others. The guy was fabulous after 9/11 and fabulous at significantly reducing crime. I would not count this guy out. (I know you don’t!)
Evolution and Christianity can be compatible. I was taught evolution in a Catholic high school biology class by Augustinian monks. They taught us standard evolution theory with the addition that we must believe that God stepped in somewhere to give man a soul.
I can see why a Christian doesn’t like evolution, as it does seem to paint a brutal, happenstance world with little involvement by the Maker.
In my opinion, DNA traces whom our ancestors are so perfectly that evolution seems to have been proven. The same DNA test that will determine the father of Anna Nicole’s baby also tells us that, millions of years ago, that baby’s ancestor’s were primates.
Ever wonder why the Ethics – the “right way to live” of all cultures are so similar? It’s from evolution.
The “right way to live” is programmed into us by billions of years of evolution. The “right way to live” produces cultures that are more efficient at producing offspring.
That’s why, when a Christian says it’s good to have children in a marriage (but NOT out of wedlock), I applaud, for the Christian is conforming to the Ethics wired into him/her by evolution.
Cultural evolutionists REQUIRE a stable man-woman-child family. That’s why the out-of-wedlock birthrate in America so offends me.
That rate is 70% among blacks, 43% among Hispanics, 30% overall, and 25% among whites. Cultural evolutionists predict that we are in serious trouble. Christians would agree.
Whether you are Christian or not, the ONLY way to real happiness is by living an ethical life (from Aristotle’s “Ethics” written about 425B C). Cultural evolutionists and Christians agree on the major points of that way to live, and it’s not by accident.
Mike
I have been having some computer problems so I have been incommunicado for a few days. I think you have both made some rather valid points. I have detailed my response below:
1) Issue of Balance – Having a family doesn’t automatically equate to balance but I do think that it helps bring about balance in one’s life. It is hard for men and women to have a challenging career and take care of family and numerous studies and interviews prove that more often than not something gets shortchanged. Several large companies like Nike are hiring professionals to help their managers have more balance in their lives between work and family. More often than not, sacrifices will have to be made and the family usually gets the shaft because they will be there while work may not.
Does not having a family make you unbalanced? Not necessarily but I am more inclined to wonder about the whys and why nots as it relates to their personal lives which do impact my thoughts in the voting booth.
2) Equality of the sexes – yes, we are equal in God’s eyes but I think it would be naive to believe that as a people we actually consider each other equal. Evidence of inequality is all around us – public education is a great example. I am not sure if I totally agree with Mike that it is “tougher for a woman to be elected President than a black” because I think both will have a difficult road to travel. I definitely cannot agree with Karen that “blacks and women run for office less frequently” because I think that is rather utopian thinking and a very easy out to the racism and sexism that exists in our country.
3) Evolution – Mike, I think you know that I am also Christian and do not agree with the evolution speak but I will gladly substitute that God did make women with a more nurturing spirit and men with a more providing spirit. Also, we were created to be fruitful and multiply (reproduce) so that is a very natural urge for us as human beings. Therefore when people do not seek to fulfill that urge (outside of being unable to for health reasons – even though there is adoption), I am once again suspect to why and why not.
Looking out at the pool of presidential candidates, I do think that no one is a shining star. Obama’s appeal to Mike as being part of the establisment hurts him among people of color (which I think is ridiculous). As a registered Independent (long story after time on Capital Hill), I will continue to watch on the sidelines. I like McCain but he is getting old. Guilani does not impress and his personal life gets messy. Romney isn’t exactly sure where he stands and the whole Mormon thing, well that is another topic. Hillary just has way too much baggage for me and I am not just not feeling her as president. John Edwards has some interesting ideas but some of them make me think that he will put the government in the poor house just like the war has done and we will continue being in debt to ourselves and others.
[...] @ 4:53 pm Please. If you know me at all, especially IRL, please head over to this conversation. Please read the comments. There’s a guy there making all sorts of statements about the [...]
You say you’re not trying to diminish anyone, yet you make statements such as:
“Have you ever seen the despair or misery in a fifty-ish or sixty-ish man or woman without children? Do they think they’ve missed out on what’s important in life?” and “A happy life … includes the woman bearing children” And saying (or at least implying) that Arizona’s single, childless woman governor is NOT a success in life because of her childlessness. That’s not diminishing the childless??
And this: “It is currently politically correct to pretend that men and women are equal. That’s not true.” That’s not diminishing the equal value that women have with men???
And this: “We are a society that attempts to provide equal rights and equal opportunities, but no one claims we are all equal.” Who claims that we are unequal??? You??? I hold FIRMLY to the FACT that men and women ARE EQUAL IN VALUE. I’m not denying the fact that they are different; it’s your use of the word “equal” with which I take issue.
Another thing I take issue with is this: “We seem to prefer a male to lead any enterprise.” Well, sir, maybe YOU prefer that, but that doesn’t mean that everyone prefers it, nor even if they DO prefer it that it makes it right, whether or not it is “instinctual” to you.
I don’t even think it’s true that women and blacks are less-often-elected to office; I think that they just run less frequently.
You also said: “I hope you accept that, all things being equal, a man or a woman with children will gain more votes than one without.” I guess it depends on the political race, right? Governorship is the highest state office, and my state is soundly run by a childless, single woman. I most certainly do NOT accept your statement.
I don’t even think that being childless makes one unbalanced! There have been plenty of childless leaders and politicians.
You’re adopting a, “What, who me???” stance, while making imflammatory statements. You’re dishing out your opinions and short-sighted observations and presenting them as “facts.” Just because you believe something, Mr. Seneca, doesn’t make it a fact.
And, yes, I am a Christian.
What heritage do I want to pass on that you don’t like?
You are reading things that I never wrote.
You claim women and blacks might not like what I write. Well, which sentence? I thought what I wrote is pretty well-accepted by everyone.
I hope you are not trying to deny that it is tougher for a black or a woman to be elected than a white male.
I hope that you are not trying to deny that a man or a woman in a child-bearing family exhibit greater balance. I think you try to turn this around into diminishing the childless, which I never stated.
I hope you accept that, all things being equal, a man or a woman with children will gain more votes than one without.
You try to change my statement of facts into trying to diminish someone.
You don’t even know me, and you call me ignorant and you hope I don’t have children. You are Christian, right?
Mr. Seneca, I think you’re changing the subject. I think children are WONDERFUL, and I’m thrilled to have four of my own. However, there are people who are unable to have children, due to health/infertility issues, or make life choices that preclude children — sometimes from ignoble reasoning (wanting to have more $$ for oneself), sometimes from misguided reasoning (desiring not to overpopulate the world), or simply because they never marry and thus unable (or, rather, wisely unwilling) to bear children alone. For most of those folk, not having children does not preclude them from a full life. Look at Paul the apostle: by most accounts, he never had children. But, where would the Christian faith be without his teaching?
I FIRMLY believe men and women are of equal worth, equal value. The beauty of humanity rests largely in the wise differences between the sexes, but that does not mean that men and women are unequal; it means they’re different. You’ll get no pro-androgynous society arguments from me. But you will, especially if this was IRL, hear my vociferous arguments if you postulate that men and women are unequal.
I believe that MOST women are doing the right thing by bearing children. And MOST men would be doing the right thing to provide for their families. However, there are some very noble exceptions to those norms.
And, hopefully, men are MORE than simply “providers” and women are MORE than simply baby-bearers.
I hope you’re not married, and I hope you have no daughters. Well, I hope you have no sons, either. The heritage you appear to want to pass on seems incomplete at best.
Your Governor may be a good governor, but is she a success in life?
Have you ever seen the despair or misery in a fifty-ish or sixty-ish man or woman without children? Do they think they’ve missed out on what’s important in life?
It is the essence of our beings to reproduce. It is what evolution has instilled in us.
It is currently politically correct to pretend that men and women are equal. That’s not true. They are different, with different strengths and weaknesses.
We are a society that attempts to provide equal rights and equal opportunities, but no one claims we are all equal.
A happy life conforms to the ethics wired into us by millions of years of evolution. That includes the woman bearing children and the man sticking around to provide and protect.
Notice how ethics, the right way to live, is the same in all religions. It’s because human ethics reflect evolution.
The God part varies widely by culture.
One more thought, Honey-Kiva, about Rice & Powell: I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing when a president and VP butt heads. I mean, it’s wise, from a world perception standpoint, to present a united front. But, much like Reagan took his most formidable Republican foe, George Bush, as his runningmate in 1980, two people who are primarily on the same page — or at least in the same book — can be successful on a Pres/VP ticket. Their differences end up being strengths, because they become more well-rounded as a team.
[...] Filed under: Political Thought — onlysometimesclever @ 9:26 am Thanks to Honey for starting this conversation. And thanks, in a way, to her commenter named “seneca” for stirring me out of my [...]
Well, Mike, your last comment was certainly spoken like a man, and an ignorant one at that. I found it offensive, and I’m not even a feminist. I guess it’s views like yours that would rally the women (and potentially the African Americans, depending on the candidate) to overcome such bias and elect someone who isn’t white and male.
Just because women lead differently than men don’t mean that they don’t lead. Men tend to lead more powerfully than women — using force and muscle and intimidation, but that doesn’t mean that women are inadequate leaders simply because they don’t lead that way. Women are generally END-oriented, rather than MEANS-oriented, and tend to build concensus, rather than just knocking out the foe.
My issue w/ Hillary isn’t her potential leadership skills; it’s her basic beliefs. I think that she would actually be a GREAT leader. I mean “great” as in “effective.” It’s just that, given that I don’t support many of her beliefs, she would use that effectiveness to, IMO, lead our country down a path to a destination that I don’t think it should go.
I’m from Arizona. We have a childless (never married) woman governor who just got re-elected named Janet Napolitano. I don’t agree w/ all of her policies, but she has been a GREAT governor, and very effective. The fact that she was reelected by a wide margin, as a Democrat, in a state that is highly Republican, is proof of that. I didn’t vote for her, but I’m not up in arms that she won another term; she’s been, by and large, very good for our state.
I do admit that I think it is suspect if the male candidate has no children from a marriage. I think it signifies a lack of balance.
I think the same of a female candidate.
I think that, in America, it is tougher for a woman to be elected President than a black.
Obama and Colin Powell seem to have overcome the race issue. Most of us, but not all, see them as men like us, us meaning white males.
Women have a tougher row to hoe. I think it’s instinctual. We seem to prefer a male to lead any enterprise.
Evolution has instilled in us that men provide and protect, and women nurture. I think this is reflected in our choice of males as leaders, even when better females are available.
Good point about Condi. She is very smart but there were some definite missteps or blind leading the blind.
As for male presidents, I did a quick search and James Buchanan never married so he was a bachelor president. Six presidents had no children, Tyler and Wilson were among six to remarry after the death of their wives (Tyler and Wilson stand out because they remarried while in the White House) and Reagan was the only divorced president.
I think Condi has no political future due to her major participation in pushing the War.
Although Condi not having children is suspect in some eyes, it’s also suspect if the male presidential candidate has no children.
I wonder if we have ever elected a man without children.
Karen,
I am not a big Obama fan either, but the rest of the field is not that appealling. I love Condi and think she would make an interesting ticket. I don’t think with Colin Powell being that they did a lot of head butting it appears on several different issues. However, either of them would cause a second look on a ticket.
No one talks about it but I think it will become an issue that she is not married because then she appears too driven and others would probably seek to cast her as tough and other unflattering words reserved for smart women that have never married or bore children. It is a double standard that still remains.
My honest opinion is that it will be some time before Republicans are comfortable behind a candidate of color for a nationwide race. Lynn Swann and Ken from Ohio were rarities and here in Maryland we had Michael Steele but none of those fully had the entire political machine behind them so they sputtered.
In the meantime there is television to provide us with a racially neutral society…to a degree.
Seneca,
Interesting point about King and Jackson. I think that if King ever had political aspirations in his day and time that would have never come to fruition..we still had miscegenation laws on most of the books.
Jackson is too divisive for my taste. I see him as a great cheerleader or pep rally leader that can get people motivated but after that he is short on substance in my opinion.
What you consider to be Obama’s establishment credentials are the same credentials that are causing others to come up with definitions on the degrees of blackness as if there are not far greater issues to wrap our minds around.
This past week has proved interesting and it clearly looks as if he and Hillary are the front runners so I guess we will continue to see how tis one plays out.
I am not a huge Obama fan but I think he does inspire hope and he brings a breath of fresh air (much more fresh now that his wife has made him stop smoking). At this point, I am not that impressed with the field on either side of the aisle but we do have a year to see them at their best and worst. Thanks for sharing!
Well, Kiva, I’m not an Obama fan, personally… I’m not anti-Obama, though. Whaddya think about Condi Rice? I also wish Colin Powell had political ambitions, because I think he and Rice would be the PERFECT ticket, with either of them as President.
I really think Condi could get elected, because she’d have the vote of so many people: African-American, women and Republicans. Of course, not *every*one in *every* group would favor her, but I think enough would to get her voted in.
Not that she’s running; I’m just wishing.
Obama is different, in my opinion.
Martin Luther King and Jessee Jackson were movement leaders, King a great man who will certainly live in history forever. I admit to having attended one of Jessee’s speeches and liking him as a human being.
But I would not have voted for King or Jackson.
Obama is establishment. He’s from Harvard and has worked his way up the political system. He’s the kind of guy we look for as a presidential candidate.
I am white, and I am a fan of Obama.