Seeing the Light on Jesse Jackson

For many years, I admired Jesse Jackson and defended him against critics on a host of issues.....from civil rights to poverty. Many of my conservative friends generally held Jesse in contempt, arguing that Jesse was mainly out for Jesse.

I have sadly come to the conclusion that Jesse is showboating on the Schiavo case. In the minds of many, myself included, he has become a washed up has-been when it comes to doing much of anything useful beyond shameless self-promotion. He hasn't quite reached the depths of religious bottom feeders like Falwell and Robertson, but give him time. Some people can never figure out that you can stay in public life so long, and overreach so badly, that the good you once did gets lost and overshadowed by the goofiness that comes when you're way past your prime.

I was really surprised with the way a local radio station did a news story on Jackson and the Schiavo situation. They read the news story while circus music was playing in the background. x(

I really don't know what Jackson hoped to accomplish other than grandstanding.

I was also surprised to read an allegation about Bush when he was Governor in Texas. According to NNBD (whoever they are):

"Cases like Schiavo's are not uncommon, and are disposed of much easier in Texas. When President Bush was Governor there, he signed into law measures that allow the hospital to pull the plug -- even against the family's wishes -- if the family can't pay for the patient's care."

http://www.nndb.com/people/435/000026357/

>I was also surprised to read an allegation about Bush when he

>was Governor in Texas.

I'm never surprised when Bush is being a hypocrite. That is his standard mode of operation. The bigger surprise would be if he actually displayed some integrity for once in his life.

dear bucky,

no surprise here. jesse jackson has always promoted himself first and the cause has always been second.

i remember when dr king was murdered, jackson appeared before the city council of chicago holding a bloody shirt and told how dr king died in his arms and the blood was dr king's; later it was clear that dr king did not die in jesse jackson's arms and if i remember correctly, the blood was not king's. he just used the event to promote himself. perhaps another poster can post his recollection of the time but that is how i remember it.

his OPERATION PUSH had hundreds of thousands of dollars of missing funds but the government was afraid to go after him for political reasons. the issue with his mistress on the payroll was not a surprise.

it is a sad case of what could have been a great man just not measuring up.

>"Cases like Schiavo's are not uncommon, and are disposed of

>much easier in Texas. When President Bush was Governor there,

>he signed into law measures that allow the hospital to pull

>the plug -- even against the family's wishes -- if the family

>can't pay for the patient's care."

While this is an accurate description of the law, the conclusion you are drawing from it about Bush is quite inaccurate.

At the time this law was signed by Bush, the pre-existing law made it extremely easy to have the plug pulled. Prior to Bush's signing of the new law, he lobbied for and tried to have enacted a law which made it MORE DIFFICULT for the plug to be pulled on all patients. But the State House and Senate in Texas was dominated by Democrats and the bill that he ended up signing was an improvement on the prior bill (meaning, it provided MORE protections for patients in these conditions), and it was the best he could get at the time. He tried to make it even HARDER for the plug to be pulled, meaning he was consistent then with his position now in the Schiavo case.

To blame Bush for that Texas bill is like blaming Clinton for the "don't ask, don't tell" policy -- a law which Clinton DID sign. As a result, one can accurately accuse Clinton of having signed the policy that requires that openly gay people be booted out of the military, but it's really an unfair criticism, since Clinton TRIED to get a more pro-gay policy enacted and only signed the "don't ask, don't tell" bill once it became apparent that it was the best he could get. The exact same is true for Bush and that patient's bill in Texas.

>I have sadly come to the conclusion that Jesse is showboating

>on the Schiavo case. In the minds of many, myself included,

>he has become a washed up has-been when it comes to doing much

>of anything useful beyond shameless self-promotion.

I am the last person to defend Jesse Jackson, but it's really a sign of how sadly partisan so many people are that someone like Jackson, who reliably spews the liberal line for decades and is consequently considered to be a liberal hero, takes a view that diverges from liberal orthodoxy ONE TIME, and suddenly, liberals turn on him and attack him mercilessly. The right-wing does the same exact thing - you should hear what they're saying about life-long pure conservatives who opposed Congressional intervenion in the Schiavo case.

Why isn't it possible that Jesse Jackson believed in the position he took with sincerity? As a Christian minister who has ALWAYS used his biblical and religious views as support for his political views (something which, for some reason, never caused liberals to accuse him of being a "theocrat" or a religious fanatic), it's hardly surprising that he has taken the position he took here.

The fact is that A LOT of Democrats and liberals have come out and pubicly opposed the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. This includes: Barney Frank, Al Sharpton, Ralph Nader, and I heard (but haven't read), Bill Clinton. Are all of them showboating whorez, too?

Someone should be able to take a divergent view from the orthodoxy of "their side" without being purged and having their motives called into question. But these days, both sides have a "them or us" mentality, and so defection on any issue is simply not allowed and even one-time offenses are punished with the harshest measures.

>

>The fact is that A LOT of Democrats and liberals have come out

>and pubicly opposed the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding

>tube. This includes: Barney Frank, Al Sharpton, Ralph Nader,

>and I heard (but haven't read), Bill Clinton. Are all of them

>showboating whorez, too?

I could be mistaken, but I don't think Barney Frank would be included in that list, as I listened to him being interviewed and it sure didn't sound like he was opposing the removal of the feeding tube.

As for Sharpton and Nader, no big surprise. Clinton, I just don't know.

>I could be mistaken, but I don't think Barney Frank would be

>included in that list, as I listened to him being interviewed

>and it sure didn't sound like he was opposing the removal of

>the feeding tube.

Looks like I may have been mistaken about Barney Frank. I could have sworn I read somewhere that he favored the re-insertion of the feeding tube, but I just looked to see if I could find what I thought I recalled reading and all I found was stuff saying that Frank was vigorously against Congressional intervention to have the feeding tube re-inserted. That doesn't mean that he favored removal of the tube, since one could favor re-insertion of the tube but be vigorously against Congressional intervention (as I was), but I can't find anything now saying he opposed removal of the tube.

In any event, I've heard other liberals and Democrats (for instance, David Boies, Gore's 2000 lawyer, in addition to Sharpton, Nader and Jackson) express vigorous opposition to removal of the feeding tube.

This issue is morally and ethically complicated, and I can definitely see liberals, especially Christian ones like Jesse Jackson, opposing removal of the feeding tube. I just don't think people's questions should be motive ON THE QUESTION of whether the feeding tube should have been removed.

What is NOT complicated, however, is the complete outrageouness and danger of the Congress trying to force the judicial outcome they want. On THAT question, it's quite appropriate not just to question, but seriously doubt, the motives of the power-hungry mongrels responsible for that, especially in light of their comments now as reflected in the article you posted starting this thread.

think even liberals >

>As for Sharpton and Nader, no big surprise. Clinton, I just

>don't know.

>

>Why isn't it possible that Jesse Jackson believed in the

>position he took with sincerity? As a Christian minister who

>has ALWAYS used his biblical and religious views as support

>for his political views (something which, for some reason,

>never caused liberals to accuse him of being a "theocrat" or a

>religious fanatic), it's hardly surprising that he has taken

>the position he took here.

Liberals have never accused Jackson of being a theocrat because, at least until now, he hasn't been one. Beginning with the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the vast majority of American politicians have been believers themselves, and have been guided in their political thinking and decision-making by their religious values and beliefs. Are you saying that they were all theocrats?

Of course not, because it isn't true. Acting politically based on religious belief doesn't make you a theocrat. A theocrat is someone who wants to eliminate the separation of church and state, and make them one and the same. Iran is an example of theocracy. Theocrats also want to impose their beliefs on everyone else, even if the majority of their fellow citizens DON'T believe the same way.

For example, a person can come to support the right of women to have abortions from his/her personal religious and moral beliefs. Millions of individual Americans, as well as entire faith communities, have come to that conclusion. However, supporting the right of women to have abortions doesn't in any way force women who DON'T believe in abortion for religious and moral reasons to have one. They are entirely free not to have one, if it violates their profoundly held beliefs. That isn't theocracy. That's liberty. The opposing position IS theocratic, because it would forbid women who have no religious or moral opposition to abortion from having one, and expose them to criminal prosecution. The opposing position wishes to impose such a ban even though the clear majority of Americans is against it and doesn't share the religious objections to abortion of the anti-abortionists. That's a denial of liberty.

Another example is gay marriage: Permitting gay civil marriage has no effect whatsoever either on people who don't believe in it (and therefore wouldn't enter into such a marriage themselves) or on churches that don't believe in religious same-sex marriages. Nothing would change for them. They continue to have the liberty to believe as they wish about such marriages. Forbidding gay civil marriage, based on religious beliefs, IS theocratic, because it imposes one religious view on every one else who has no religious or moral objections to such marriages (perhaps half of all Americans or somewhat more). That's another denial of liberty.

So let's be careful to distinguish between acting from religious and moral values in a way that doesn't force other people to violate their own religious convictions, and imposing your religious convictions by force of law on those who don't believe or accept them. That's exactly what the Inquisition was all about, in the days when ALL European states were theocratic.

>Liberals have never accused Jackson of being a theocrat

>because, at least until now, he hasn't been one.

Are you saying that he is a theocrat now or is acting like one?

Beginning

>with the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the

>Constitution, the vast majority of American politicians have

>been believers themselves, and have been guided in their

>political thinking and decision-making by their religious

>values and beliefs.

YES, EXACTLY! Our whole country and all of its institutions pre-suppose a belief in God and are built on the premise that a God exists.

Are you saying that they were all

>theocrats?

No, I'm saying the opposite. As you point out, it has been the case since the formation of our country that the overwhelming majority of people believed in God and formed their political views based on that belief. They were not theocrats, but liberals frequently use that word to describe anyone today who believes in God and religion and forms (and argues for) their political views based on that belief.

>Of course not, because it isn't true. Acting politically

>based on religious belief doesn't make you a theocrat.

But every time George Bush says that he wants to spread liberty because liberty is God's gift to every human being, I hear liberals saying how frighteningly theocratic that is (even though JFK said EXACTLY the same thing, but even more religiously, in his Inagural Address, and the Decaration of Independence makes exactly the same point).

I agree that that "(a)cting politically based on religious belief doesn't make you a theocrat." But if you believe - as you said - that the Founders were NOT theocrats, what are today's leaders doing that the Founders didn't do? The Founders had anti-gay laws in place. They didn't allow gay marriage. Many of them, including Jefferson, made horrific statements about homosexuality.

If they weren't theocrats, how are today's religiously-minded politicians any different?

A

>theocrat is someone who wants to eliminate the separation of

>church and state, and make them one and the same. Iran is an

>example of theocracy. Theocrats also want to impose their

>beliefs on everyone else, even if the majority of their fellow

>citizens DON'T believe the same way.

You say a theocrat is someone who wants to impose their views "even if the majority of their fellow citizens DON'T believe the same way." But the example you used is gay marriage. A majority of people DO oppose gay marriage. Also, the Founders, who you say aren't theocrats, also banned gay marriage. Also, many people (including President Bush) argue against gay marriage on civil grounds, not religious grounds.

So how does opposition to gay marriage make someone a theocrat?

As for abortion, we don't know if a majority of people support abortion or not, because state legislatures aren't allowed to vote to ban it. In many states, my guess is that a vast majority of people DO support a ban on abortion.

Also, many people are opposed to abortion (me included) on purely scientific and civil grounds, not on religious grounds. I happen to believe that a pre-born fetus is as much of a human being as you and I - not for religious reasons, but for scientific reasons (particularly more well-developed fetuses have every attribute which makes someone "human", and therefore, killing it is murder).

I presume you believe that it's possible to favor laws making it a crime to murder post-born human beings without being a "theocrat." Why does favoring similar laws for pre-born human beings make you a theocrat?

Sure, some people who oppose gay marriage and abortion are doing so from theocratic leanings, but many, many are not.

As for Jesse Jackson, he has long argued for his political views - such as governmental confiscation of private wealth, opposition to welfare reform, anti-discrimination laws - which would restrict the freedom of his fellow citizens and which he justifies on the grounds that Christian morality compels such laws. How is that any different than your definition of a "theocrat"?

>So let's be careful to distinguish between acting from

>religious and moral values in a way that doesn't force other

>people to violate their own religious convictions, and

>imposing your religious convictions by force of law on those

>who don't believe or accept them. That's exactly what the

>Inquisition was all about, in the days when ALL European

>states were theocratic.

This comes down to that same point from before. You only recognize conservative restraints on liberty as being anti-freedom, because those are the freedoms (gay marriage, abortion) which you care about. But you don't recognize left-wing restraints on freedom as restraints because you either believe it's justifiable to restrain those freedoms or you don't care about the freedoms being restrained.

But an enormous portion of the left-wing political menu supported by Jesse Jackson restricts people's individual freedom - high taxation, strict governemental regulation on the private sphere, hate speech laws, gun control laws, anti-discrimination measures governing how people run their business and homes, federalizing every issue so as to deny autonomy of local communities.

Liberals often look at laws which restrict economic freedom as being irrelevant based on the misguided belief that "it's just about money" - but it's not. What we can build and achieve in the marketplace constitutes so much of what we can become as human beings; communism was so suffocating precisely because it blocked individual achievement and the production and creation of economic prosperity. Left-wing laws which seek to do the same are profound restrictions on individual freedom, even if you believe that they are justified.

Just because you think it's justifiable to restrict these freedoms doesn't mean they aren't restrictions on individual liberty. They are. And some people on the Left, like Jesse Jackson, have long justified these restrictions on individual liberty based on religious dogma. So I don't see how you can exclude religious Leftists from your defintion of theocrats.

Jesse grandstanding? My man Jesse? I remember when an American plane crashed in China and all of the American government were wringing their hands as to what to do to get our guys back. It was quite a standoff for a while. My man Jesse went to China and viola we got our guys back. Say what you want - and I DO believe he is grandstanding - I like him.