sdimbert
Saying that someone’s words are offensive is not the same as saying they should not be allowed to speak those words.
Saying a position is inappropriate in a leader in a diverse society is not the same as saying that it is inappropriate for a leader in a diverse society to express his opinion.
George Wallace ran for president on a platform of racial segregation. It was not inappropriate for him to speak his position. His position, however, was inappropriate.
Oh. Drat! My mistake. I was going to offer to kiss Eve’s backside, godless or otherwise, but I appear to have stumbled into the wrong part of the Edwardian mansion.
Tee hee!
Lord B
First:
Why? How can you say, “in a diverse society,” that George Wallace’s position was inappropriate? Inappropriate for what?
Second:
I say again, Joe Lieberman was not speaking as a leader when he made the remarks which sparked this thread. He was speaking as a candidate.
first
Inappropriate is a value judgment. Obviously, when I say that a position is inappropriate for the leader of a divers society I mean that it conflicts with the values of a diverse society. I should, perhaps, additionally clarify by specifying a diverse society predicated upon equality for its citizens.
In short, segregating a class of citizens contradicts the presumption of equality for those citizens. This is an inappropriate attitude for an official of a government that is predicated upon that presumption.
second
I have not claimed that Lieberman, or Wallace, was speaking as a government leader. They were, however, speaking as men aspiring to a position of leadership. Surely you do not contend that the words of a candidate should not be used to determine the attitudes he would hold and the actions he would take if elected?
It would be an interesting thought experiment to construct a situation wherein a government official would have to create a situation of inequality for some citizens to maintain equality for an entire society.
Harrison Bergeron springs to mind. But that is neither here nor there. Point conceded.
**
I would say that those words may be considered to reflect a candidate’s attitudes; they are a far cry from promises of action.
And, remember, even if they are promises, they would be only “campaign promises” at best.
My point remains that Leiberman’s comments were only a statement of his feelings on an obviously personal point. He directed them to a religious audience and felt it appropriate at that time to admit how he felt.
Is it possible for a man to firmly believe in an idea and ignore that conviction while doing his job? Certainly.
Of course. It is wuite possible that Wallace would not have enacted any policies to protect or promote segregation had he been elected president.
Nevertheless, many people did not feel comfortable with the thought that a political leader would harbor and publicly espouse such attitudes. The situation with Lieberman is analagous in enough respects that some of us have voiced our reaction both upon htis board and to the gentleman in question.
Cool thread title
Looking for some negative attention, Philosophocles?
Poster behaving moronically by resurrecting ancient threads apparently just to annoy people.
I don’t mind people being reminded of Lieberman’s views. If anybody really believes that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion they could do a lot better than support this guy. Well, I hope they can, I guess I don’t know the other dems views on the subject. I know I’ll never vote for Lieberman because of this speech.