My only disagreement is about the conservative-family link – I am focusing my comment on the wife & husband relationship.

I have seen many marriages start over the last years. However, it seems to me that conservatives do not value or respect their wives as much as liberals. I am under the impression that they value tradition and the stereotype of what a partner should be, yet not suffer from any guilt from going to bachelor parties and table dances (of course, its a generalization that I would never suggest applies to all).

It might be just me personal experience, but I am under the impression that liberals, in general, respect women as equals and therefore value more having a thrutful wife-husband relationship, which is, in my oppoinion, the base of a solid family.

So I ask… why should the idea of family be linked to conservativism? I think that while a family based on tradition is a conservative value, a family based on love is a liberal one.

Thanks

CFS

I’ll post a little bit, just to sum up.

- We agree on gay civil unions.
- We on almost everything else.

I’m going to take another day to look over my reply before posting, to make sure I don’t post too hastily.

“Again, I think I’d include the case where they truly hate each other – the kind of couple where each partner wants the other to die but is not doing anything to facilitate that.”

— Why? How does one prove unexpressed hate?

“In the older days, women could not support themselves economically. They weren’t allowed to get jobs – instead, they were married off like property – the father would “give” his daughter away.”

— You need to do quite a bit more reading of history.

“I want to point out that I was talking specifically about gay couples who do not adopt. Why can’t they get married?”

— I have addressed this ad nauseum. Marriage is about the children.

“I would argue that “til death do us part” is no longer a real part of the definition of marriage. With a 50% divorce rate, it is flipping a coin. It’s lip service.”

— Because the vow to be committed to the marriage, the most important part of the institution, was for many people, removed from the cultural understanding of marriage. It would be better if divorce were made more difficult, rather then further diminishing the meaning of the institution by allowing gay marriage. If half the people who eat chicken die from it, should we add chicken eggs to their diet since they are dying anyway?

“It is consistent, but with changing social norms, the role of marriage in society is changing. Frankly, I doubt it can be stopped. The economic conditions of society are different.”

— You mean like how Americans today need two incomes rather then one in order to live well. You mean like how the costs of doing the things the mother usually cared for is being done at far higher expense, with far less care, then it used to be because she is out working rather then watching the kids. Before you get on me for my sexism, it doesn’t make a difference to me if its the man who stays with the kids or its the woman, the grandparents, whomever. It should be the family but remember, half of all families are divorced. The point is that very few Americans can afford to maintain a family on one income. I suppose your solution would be to get the government to cover the costs of having a family so that people would be free to divorce as often as they like?

“The fear that allowing gays to get married is going to ruin the institution of marriage is what is motivating the push against it. I still don’t see the connection – I doubt gay people will be any more likely to get divorced than straight people.”

— That is pure bs. Are you telling me that gays only thought of getting married once they realized that the rest of us were afraid of the idea?

“I think we can both agree that it is bigoted to hang a sign that says “we don’t serve (insert ethnic/racial/sex orientation slur here)”.”

— Yes, it is bigoted. I wouldn’t do it. I think business owners who are bigoted should have the right to hang that sign.

“As far as your standard for divorce goes, I don’t think even a majority of Americans would support that standard – they would want something a little looser than that.”

— So now the desires of a majority of Americans is a worthy argument against a moral argument. When it was 80% of Americans being against same sex marriage….

“I’m not sure that’s the case, either. In a lot of more primitive societies, elders occupy a central role in the society – they are in positions of power, and they remain the head of the family. A lot of third world cultures treat their elders better than we treat our own. It is perfectly natural to care for elders.”

— Primitives, third-world folk, all these people have a culture which reinforce what may be a naturally positive trait in many folk. The culture teaches us how to treat one another. Some are more prone to caring for our elders then others. But, culture defines the acceptable spectrum and most people try to fit into it. Obviously, given the choice, many people choose not to pay that sort of respect to their elders and are poorer for it.

“We have developed a much more individualistic culture than most others. It may be a sign that our culture won’t last.”

— I have quite a bit of thinking to do over that idea. I already have many angles to consider it from but I have put no order to it. I’m not sure you’ll ever get a proper response to that point from me. I think the problem is that it is too non-specific and, in many ways, contra the position you have consistently taken in the past. Up to now you seemed to be coming from the position that individualism, freedom and liberty are interchangeable in some way and you have been a proponent of them all.

— The thing is, I think we should be more individualistic then we are but every trait has its place. In terms of marriage, it is a specific institution and the will to mold it to any intimate relationship is degrading to the role marriage aught to be playing. In terms of business, art, friendly human interaction and some other endeavors, there is something to be said about individuality. Perhaps the culture’s ill-health is due to us having too much individuality in the some things and not enough in others. I believe that this culture is great enough to correct itself and do not think the Left is currently the corrective ideology.

“You put one on in self-defense, not to take resources from someone else when they won’t sell the resources to you. Obviously, that’s not how it works out in reality, though. Nations don’t really operate in moral terms.”

— There is more to it then that. Iraq is just one example. A nation, such as our own, will wage war when morality and self interest intersect, as they did, and do, in Iraq.

“You either strive for an ideal or you don’t. The ideal world is very difficult to achieve – but at this time, very few people are truly striving for it. Everyone believes it is impossible, so no one tries. Self-fulfilling prophecy.”

— BS. Different people have different ideas of what an ideal world looks like. Reality is sometimes the imperfect meeting of perfect ideas. Plenty of people strove for ideals and failed so horribly that the world was a worse place for it; Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot. It is the acceptance of imperfection that allows for tolerance, variety, opportunity. This too has its limits. You can’t be too jaded nor too idealistic. Striking the balance is tied into the Chinese concept of “correct touch”. This is what Jews found in the Oral Torah and was later codified in the Talmud, Mishna and other rabbinical works of genius. You are too idealistic and inexperienced for your ideas to be pragmatic and substantial. I know I am condescending to you but I have had some positive experiences with telling people what I see. I think you are even aware of your condition. As a limited man you cannot truly comprehend the ideal. One day you might realize that the ideal should be left fate, or G-d, or whatever you feel comfortable thinking of as an infinitely wiser and smarter being then yourself. Maybe that is why we don’t see eye to eye. Maybe you can’t imagine anything being that much wiser or smarter then you. Perhaps you don’t imagine that the Universe could actually be beyond your comprehension.

“Treating the “enemy combatants” in the way we are treating them, by indefinitely detaining them, not applying due process to them, and torturing them (and I believe we do torture our enemies, in those CIA black sites in other countries), undermines our moral authority. Add to that the serious risk of detaining and torturing an innocent person and, we have seriously jeaopardized our moral authority in the eyes of the world. That’s why we have no allies now. If we want to win (whatever that means in the war on terror), we need allies.”

— We treat our prisoners in this war much better then we treated our enemies in any other war. While our wars were in progress we did not and have not released enemy combatants or applied due process to them. I, unlike John McCain, do not think that water-boarding constitutes torture and I, unlike you, do not think we are torturing people in secret sites. So, our moral authority is just fine. In fact, the Iraqis have been joining in the counter-insurgency and put Al-Qaeda on the run, in no small part, because the Iragis now see us as morally better then our enemy. We have turned the corner in Iraq because the Iraqis are realizing they can trust us.

— We do have allies. The Iraqis, the Israelis, the NATO nations, Colombia has been working very hard to ally themselves with us. Unfortunately the Saudis are officially our ally although they behave, in many ways, as a belligerent. We have dubious allies in the Gulf States. India is an ally. Our list of allies is pretty long. The Poles and Czechs are allies with us. The list goes on.

— I will be skipping the Geneva Convention issues as it is so against what I know about them that I feel I need to reread them to properly dress you down.

“I have just as much confidence in gay people to create a devoted relationship as I have in heterosexuals. Why don’t you? Do you believe gays are inherently fickle, of a lesser moral fiber, or more promiscuous?”

— See, you want to frame my argument in bigoted terms. Most gays I know do not want children. I know one gay couple where one just gave birth to a daughter. I know another whose girlfriend left her while they were in the process of trying to adopt a child. All the rest of the homosexuals I know are happy to be free of the responsibility of childrearing. The few polls I have ever read that discuss the desires of gay couples, it is nearly universally true that they do not want children. The movement for same sex marriage does not express their desire for gay marriage in terms of the right of gays to raise children. I have no more or less an issue with heterosexuals who go through a series of relationships then I do with gays who do. I don’t think the commitments between heterosexuals who do not marry are inherently any more meaningful then those of committed, unmarried gays. I have a problem with anyone who is getting married as a statement that, again, amounts to “we are dating, really, really, really seriously”.

“I disagree, and if this way of thinking – that Arab lives are worthless – is very common, it helps explain why the Palestinians hate Israel so much – in part. Nazis would have said the exact same thing about Jews, and it would have been just as horrible.”

— You don’t know how much value Rabbi Kahane put in a Jewish fingernail. If Kahane put as much value in a Jewish fingernail as you do in your mother, would you not allow the death of 1000 people before your mother’s? Okay, that is a but silly but I hope you get one point from my response, don’t be so quick in thinking you understand what someone is saying, means and feels as most of us find it difficult to align the three.

— Here is the problem with your absolutist line of moral thinking. Once you decide something is immoral then it is immoral to the nth degree and they deserve being assassinated for their words. Meanwhile, if you are currently blind to the cultural disintegration our deep, human need for familial order, that committed marriage helps to instil, you figure, being for that institution is backwards, cannot be recreated today or in the future, so we who actively propose to maintain that institution need to just get over our primitive ideas and move on.

— You have no idea what Kahane’s actions were. You are reacting simply to his words. I’m guessing you think Jeremiah Wright deserves to be assassinated seeing as how his words are incendiary, hateful and, unlike Rabbi Kahane’s words, based on lies. Does Wright require an understanding of context while the Jewish plight for a Jewish Homeland is racist, evil, extremist, pure lunacy? Is the struggle to maintain the Jewish identity also backwards? How about the Arab identity? What if the Jewish identity is strongly tied tot he Jewish Homeland? What if the Arab identity is strongly tied to Muslim supremecy? What if the reason the Palestinians don’t have a second homeland (are you aware that 90% of Jordanians are Palestinian?) is because the Arabs are so stuck to the idea that the Jews cannot have a homeland that they insist on maintaining a refugee population rather then let them settle in permanent homes as permanent members of Arab countries?

“I disagree, and if this way of thinking – that Arab lives are worthless – is very common, it helps explain why the Palestinians hate Israel so much – in part. Nazis would have said the exact same thing about Jews, and it would have been just as horrible.”

— First off, this way of thinking is not common at all. Even if it were, perhaps the Arabs did something to the Jews that helps explain why the Israelis, in this hypothetical world, consider the Arabs worthless? History does not begin with a grievance. Since this way of thinking is not common, what then is the Arab excuse for hating the Jewish State?

— Palestine was nothing before the Jewish migrations in the late 19th century. the Ottoman’s controlled that territory and let it fall away to swampland, pestilence, plague, malaria and Bedouin/bandits. Westerners who visited found depression, stagnation, crime, disorder and many died while visiting. Even the Jews who lived there, and there have always been Jews living there, were a backwards lot living in Jerusalem, Hebron and Safed. They were poor, lazy and crude. European Jews began to buy land from the lawful landholders who were mostly Turks and Arabs. They sometimes succeeded in getting Arabs to work with them in the fields which had once been swampland (they drained them by importing Eucalyptus trees). Many Jews died from disease but the will for a Jewish homeland was strong and the Jewish situation in Europe was so dismal that they stayed and more joined them. The Arab leaders began to notice and saw that these Jews were not like the Jews who had been living there for the last many hundred years. Those Jews had been broken by Muslim supremacy and had accepted their dhimi status. These new Jews were hard working, self-sufficient and proud. These Jews needed to learn a lesson about what its like to be an infidel in Muslim countries. So, the Arabs attacked the Jews in the cities. They attacked the Jewish settlements. They raped, they destroyed, they stole. History begins with an attempt at bettering one’s self. That bettering of one’s self is often not at the expense of another. The Jews who came to Palestine, in those days, came with the idea that they could make the region bloom and better the lives of every person living there.

“… Western democracy has to be ruled out. For me that’s cut and dried: there’s no question of setting up democracy in Israel, because democracy means equal rights for all, irrespective of racial or religious origins.”

— Whats the problem here. A Jewish homeland is a Jewish homeland. I don’t have a problem with the Arabs living their lives as Arab Muslims in their country. I don’t have a problem that the laws of Catholicism be the ruling principle of the Vatican. Why shouldn’t the Jewish homeland follow Jewish principles and Jewish laws?

““I want to scare them and I want to make them realize that, contrary to what they have believed for fifteen years, time is not on their side… And I approve of anybody who commits such acts of violence. Really, I don’t think that we can sit back and watch Arabs throwing rocks at buses whenever they feel like it. They must understand that a bomb thrown at a Jewish bus is going to mean a bomb thrown at an Arab bus.”

— I disagree with that specific statement made by Rabbi Kahane. If you dig a little into the context of the statement, you’ll find it came under a heading we might consider the conditions under which the State of Israel has become lax in its duty of protecting its citizens. It should be the Jewish State, not individual vigilantes, that inflict the bombing and to some limited sense it does. I think that if people attack any sovereign nation, it is the responsibility of that nation to defend itself and go after the leaders who justify, train and plan these attacks. An attack from another State is an attack by that State, unless they do something to punish those individuals who attacked and keep others individuals form finding it easy to do the same.

“So, a bomb thrown at a Jewish school bus will be a bomb thrown at an Arab school bus, then. That is evil.”

— What then is the appropriate response to someone attacking your children with bombs? I’ll tell you, someone threatens my son’s life, I will end them. A fingernail on my son means more to me then 1000 of any other life.

— Now, I wouldn’t want the death of 1000 people for the sake of my son’s fingernail. The point is, in the question between my son and anyone else, or even 1000 anyone elses, there is no question. Still, I would be proud if when my son grew up he would see the value in joining the military and contribute to our communal safety in a disciplined, principled and well trained manner. If there came a day when someone hijacked a plane and flew it into a building, I would want my son to be out there hunting and killing those responsible and those working to echo that attack. When I read about Iraqi people finally coming to understand the goodness of the American fighting forces, that they see how hard they are willing to work, that Iraqis see we are working with and for their betterment, that our men and women are risking their lives (rather then quoting party line platitudes from the safety of the University) to make that country work and that they recognize we are better then Al-Qaeda, my pride chokes me up. We are a great country on a great mission. This is why I resent people like Obama who point only to the negatives of the present so they can sell us an idealized future that only they can help us realize. To some it seems every struggle is a tragedy and every success a crime.

“I have never advocated such disconnection.”

— Every idea, every common bond, every word we speak is a tribal sort of “connection to a place, a community, etc., (that) can lead to fascist thinking.”

“If one is dangerous to the other and/or to the family then I can understand divorce. That is about it. Again, richer or poorer, sickness or health. So long as one is not physically in danger from the other then work it out. Its not a question of being capable of working it out it is a question of what avenues are available to allow people under emotional stress to make very bad decisions. The stress of daily life effects us all and we take it out on one another. Again, only physical harm is a fair reason to destroy a family.”

Again, I think I’d include the case where they truly hate each other – the kind of couple where each partner wants the other to die but is not doing anything to facilitate that.

“Marriage is about helping take care of one another. This is economics.”

But the hook, the initial motive to get married, for most people today, is love. In the older days, women could not support themselves economically. They weren’t allowed to get jobs – instead, they were married off like property – the father would “give” his daughter away. Those days have ended, and so there needed to be another reason for people to get married. Love was connected to marriage for that reason. Otherwise, people would have no need of getting married – if they can support themselves economically, there is no econonmic reason for marriage. Marriage is now largely pursued out of a desire for a lasting companionship.

“Love, romantic love, always goes away and sometimes returns. Once you have kids you change, the relationship changes, what stays the same is the commitment.”

If all goes well, yes.

“Because it harms the child who was adopted. It brings unnecessary confusion and uprooting. You have enough confused and uprooted people in society, that society becomes confused and uprooted.”

I want to point out that I was talking specifically about gay couples who do not adopt. Why can’t they get married?

“A part of the definition of marriage is that it only ends at death. When as many people get divorced as do in this environment then we can see that the concept of marriage has been undermined.”

I would argue that “til death do us part” is no longer a real part of the definition of marriage. With a 50% divorce rate, it is flipping a coin. It’s lip service.

“I am not even sure it was done through a plan to undermine it (although one can argue that the early communists, and various other modernists argued for communal living, property and wives. They tended to get quite a few divorces at a time when this was very uncommon, so perhaps their ideas spread and the same sort of chaos their “artistic” lives exhibited has now spread to the rest of society. Its one idea anyway).”

I’d say it probably has a lot more to do with the success of the women’s rights movement in this country. They can now support themselves economically, so they don’t have an economic incentive to marriage unless they desire children. I think a lot of women have the attitude that they can have children later in life anyway, after they accomplish all their career goals. Perhaps we are just in a transition to a new paradigm where women don’t get married until their 30’s – after giving it more thought, and having more finances. I think that is a good strategy in a (relatively) new world, and perhaps there will come a day when we view two 18 year olds getting married and having their children within two years as a couple of idiots. That’s certainly what I think of it, now.

“I think it was done shortsightedly, in the same manner in which you would accept the next undermining, gay marriage.”

Again, I don’t see how one connects to the other. I imagine that the divorce rate among gay people will be 50%, just like the rest of the population. It’s not going to make marriage as an institution any weaker.

“A person alone, or even a couple, cannot confer onto themselves the status of married couple as marriage is a state within a community.”

However, the only power they must get approval from is the state, not the community. A person cannot stop a marriage by protesting when the pastor says “Speak now or forever hold your peace”. I see what you’re saying though – the reason that gay marriage is illegal is because society has defined marriage to exclude it.

“Going back to previous logic, leaders of the gay community do have the power to marry. They can marry any gay man or gay woman to one another. You argue that this bypasses the intention of the gay community, which is to have same sex marriage. True.”

Thank you for finally admitting that (that it bypasses the intentions of the gay community). It completely misses the intention of the gay community – completely ignores what the argument is all about – and that is why it is an irrelevant and ridiculous argument.

“But, disallowing same sex marriage is consistent with the reason that society created marriage in the first place. Is consistent with every known community and this distinction is not made in order to subjugate the gay community to the whims of the hetero-centric world.”

It is consistent, but with changing social norms, the role of marriage in society is changing. Frankly, I doubt it can be stopped. The economic conditions of society are different.

The fear that allowing gays to get married is going to ruin the institution of marriage is what is motivating the push against it. I still don’t see the connection – I doubt gay people will be any more likely to get divorced than straight people.

“Meanwhile you don’t see the problem in increasing the standards of bigotry. Who gets to decide what is bigoted?”

It’s the community that decides in both cases. But you were talking about the right of business owners to discriminate on the basis or race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc – the right of them to put bigotry into practice. I think we can both agree that it is bigoted to hang a sign that says “we don’t serve (insert ethnic/racial/sex orientation slur here)”.

As far as your standard for divorce goes, I don’t think even a majority of Americans would support that standard – they would want something a little looser than that.

“I would not favor an end to borders anymore then I would favor an end to property rights. I don’t agree that equal resources bring about human equality. Some people work harder then others. Some people are more skilled then others (often a function of hard work). Some people are more talented then others. Some people are kinder then others. Some people are more responsible then others.”

I’m not shooting for total equality of the kind advocated in communism – what I would like to see is a more equitable distribution of resources, so that we could end famine. I would also like to see an end to wars, that a global government might bring about.

Some people are more intelligent than others. Some people are healthier than others. Some people can afford a better education than others. Some people are born into a war-torn and starving part of the world. Nature, as you say in a few sentences, favors some people over others (although I don’t agree that nature favors some groups of people over others – along racial lines, at least).

I probably lean a little more towards determinism than you do when it comes to the issue of human character. Our environment can have disastrous effects on our character development, and I think, often, the obstacles are insurmountable. I don’t think people should be allowed to starve for being lazy, dumb, or ignorant, either. That’s the extent to which I would utilize and redistribute the world’s resources. And certainly children, whose characters are not even formed yet, ought not to be allowed to starve by having the misfortune of being born into a bad situation.

“Some people are more selfish then others.”

We Amercans (and I include myself here) are the most selfish nation on the planet. We use way more resources than anyone else. We do way more damage to the environment – and those in the Third World will be the first ones to pay the price for it.

“There is equality under the law. While men, according to population ratio, commit more crimes then women a judge cannot rule that the murder case before her must have been committed by the man before the court, rather then the woman, solely based on that statistic. One needs to bring real evidence regarding that particular crime and that particular suspect/defendant.”

While there is equality under the law (gay marriage and civil unions notwithstanding), equality under the law does not equal equality in practice.

For example, although segregation is illegal, de facto segregation still occurs. I do think that is a problem for politics rather than the law – changing people’s attitudes. But certain social policies can reduce segregation indirectly – by reducing crime and poverty (because they go hand in hand), I believe we could gradually integrate our society.

“The government cannot favor one race, color or creed of American. Nature often does. While justice must be blind, the community cannot be.”

Nature does not favor certain races over others. Society does. Society as in, the citizens outside the government.

“Rather then law we generally have tradition.”

We have a lot of laws, though.

“If we simply went with nature’s methods, older parents would be left to die when injured because the younger adults feel like eating a bunch of bananas rather then care for their parents.”

I’m not sure that’s the case, either. In a lot of more primitive societies, elders occupy a central role in the society – they are in positions of power, and they remain the head of the family. A lot of third world cultures treat their elders better than we treat our own. It is perfectly natural to care for elders.

In contrast, we largely shut our elders away into nursing homes and hospitals in a futile effort to prolong life. We tend to think of them as foolish and senile rather than wise.

“We have developed cultural habits which indicate and reinforce caring; gift-giving, the awareness of special events in people’s lives, caring for the sick and injured, participating in common tasks, participation in special holidays and assemblies of the group. These common practices are bonding agents for people. In some cultures the birthday celebrant gives gifts on their birthdays. In some cultures gifts are received by the birthday celebrant. Some cultures consider the new year to be the day when one adds a year to their age. Some do so on the anniversary of the individual’s birth. What this indicates of the value one culture holds to the individual relative to the group is beyond our conversation.”

Some of these practices are natural, others are learned.

“The point is that a group that survives maintains some very regular habits to reinforce a bond. It is not often that the tradition of one culture is so antithetical to another that they are willing to be killed at the borders where these two cultures meet.”

We have developed a much more individualistic culture than most others. It may be a sign that our culture won’t last.

I still don’t see how changing this one tradition, the definition of marriage, will cause the collapse of our culture. You are placing too much emphasis on the institution of marriage as you know it.

“Unless you are Ghandi, who had the advantage of believing in reincarnation, those who think otherwise are the controlling agents in the equation between a peaceful people and a warlike one. So you either give your head to the jackboot or you accept the need to put one on yourself. No amount of idealism will change that.”

You put one on in self-defense, not to take resources from someone else when they won’t sell the resources to you. Obviously, that’s not how it works out in reality, though. Nations don’t really operate in moral terms.

You either strive for an ideal or you don’t. The ideal world is very difficult to achieve – but at this time, very few people are truly striving for it. Everyone believes it is impossible, so no one tries. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

“Faith in the possibility of world peace has as little proof in its favor as faith in a deity does. I would suggest that only a deity can bring peace on Earth and so the existence of One is required for the possibility of the other.”

The belief in deities leads to more war than it prevents.

“As for oppressing 6 billion people, who would have thought that 300 million people could be oppressed? Many suggest we are being oppressed in our own country and it shouldn’t be possible to accomplish that considering our numbers.”

Many suggest that – wrongly. We aren’t seriously being oppressed, not in any sort of dictatorial way. Our rights are being impinged upon, but it is no police state.

However, there is a vast difference between 300 million people and 6 billion people. Even if it is possible to build a police state in America, that is still orders of magnitude away from building a police state over the entire world.

“Perhaps you, as an individual, can treat everyone equally but the Constitution does not have this duty, nor do the Bill of Rights. The American system of government is meant to favor Americans. These documents define the American government and protect the American people. One does not think that these principles should extend only to Americans. The American system, though, is meant to serve only Americans.”

This is the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law – between actually believing in freedom and human rights, and just paying lip service to them.

“If we wish to extend this to foreigners, fine, but it is foolish to extend them to enemies.”

No, it is not foolish. During World War II, we extended POW protections to Nazi and Japanese soldiers we captured. They were a very formidable enemy – much more dangerous than Al Qaeda is today. That is why we had such a clear-cut and obvious moral authority in the eyes of the world. The German and Japanese forces treated our soldiers, in contrast, absolutely horribly – yet we never sunk to their level. It wouldn’t have made much sense to do so – to abuse the average German or Japanese footsoldier, who may have been coerced into fighting, anyway. It’s a case of letting your anger at the enemy get the better of you.

Treating the “enemy combatants” in the way we are treating them, by indefinitely detaining them, not applying due process to them, and torturing them (and I believe we do torture our enemies, in those CIA black sites in other countries), undermines our moral authority. Add to that the serious risk of detaining and torturing an innocent person and, we have seriously jeaopardized our moral authority in the eyes of the world. That’s why we have no allies now. If we want to win (whatever that means in the war on terror), we need allies.

“Foreign combatants are not protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The Geneva Conventions have been given the authority to govern combat. One of the principles of the Geneva Conventions is that if one side breaks them then the other side is free to do as they please.”

I am unable to find such a principle. Please tell me which Convention it is from, and which part of it. What I find says that under all circumstances, detained prisoners are to be treated humanely, including unlawful combatants. Read about the Third Geneva Convention for that. This kind of lawyer’s loophole in morality, where a person somehow loses their status as human because they don’t fit a certain legal definition of “lawful combatant” is obviously just bullshit.

“The other side broke the Geneva Conventions long before we did. Case closed.”

Nope, the Geneva Conventions does not operate in this emotional, tit-for-tat manner. Think about Kosovo, Bosnia, and Serbia when you say “anything goes” when the other side is not abiding by international law. That opens the door to vicious ethnic conflicts where both sides are commiting war crimes. If it were as you say, only the side that initiated the atrocities against civilians first could be prosecuted for war crimes.

“Communism is Socialism that desires a one world order. Sort of like what you think looks like a nice idea.”

Sort of, but that is not all there is to communism. It involves the abolition of classes, violent overthrow of governments, a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, and a lot of other things I don’t agree with.

“Read “It Takes A Village” and you will find ideas filched directly from Fahrenheit 451.”

I will do that, although I tend to disagree with a lot of Hilary’s ideas anyway.

“On the other hand, gay couples do not get this benefit of the doubt as it is so minority a position that the coupling of gays would produce a marriage (a couple committed to making a family) that allowing it makes an open and declared statement that marriage simply means, these two people are dating really, really, really seriously.”

I have just as much confidence in gay people to create a devoted relationship as I have in heterosexuals. Why don’t you? Do you believe gays are inherently fickle, of a lesser moral fiber, or more promiscuous?

“That wasn’t an Israeli extremist who said that. He was a freely elected member of the Knesset, Rabbi Meir Kahane, who said it. This quote was a very serious and well principled utterance. It was spoken by a person who felt responsible for the safety of the Jewish State and it’s people. He was voted into the Knesset whose purpose is to represent the interests of the Jewish People. So a Jewish fingernail should be more important then an Arab life, seeing as the Arabs are enemies of the State of Israel and their people.”

Absolutely not, and the fact that he was elected is disgusting. He was indeed an extremist – a maniac, I would say. 1,000 Arab lives for a FINGERNAIL? That is pure lunacy and naked racism.

“The care a representative of a nation should take in the lives of foreign nationals is proportional to how where that foreign national is on the ally-enemy scale.”

I disagree, and if this way of thinking – that Arab lives are worthless – is very common, it helps explain why the Palestinians hate Israel so much – in part. Nazis would have said the exact same thing about Jews, and it would have been just as horrible.

“If Bush took the interests of a Canadian living in Quebec with the same care as he does my interests then he is not acting as President of the United States.”

If he so devalued the lives of Canadians that he is more willing to kill 1,000 of them rather than clip off an American fingernail, he is a maniac and a tyrant.

“Worse yet, if a leader of a country protects an enemy of his people while harming his own, I consider that a severe betrayal.”

There is a difference between protecting your people from an enemy and saying the enemy (and let’s make this clear – to say “Arab” is not the same as saying “Palestinian terrorist” – an Arab is anyone from a Muslim culture, basically) is less than human and deserves no consideration in the matter, is disgusting, fascist thinking.

It is no surprise he was assassinated. He was evil.

Some more things he said:

“… Western democracy has to be ruled out. For me that’s cut and dried: there’s no question of setting up democracy in Israel, because democracy means equal rights for all, irrespective of racial or religious origins.”

“Democracy and Judaism are two opposite things. One absolutely cannot confuse them. The objective of a democratic state is to allow a person to do exactly as he wishes. The objective of Judaism is to serve God and to make people better. These are two totally opposite conceptions of life.”

Advocating Jewish terrorism in response to Arab terrorism:

“I want to scare them and I want to make them realize that, contrary to what they have believed for fifteen years, time is not on their side… And I approve of anybody who commits such acts of violence. Really, I don’t think that we can sit back and watch Arabs throwing rocks at buses whenever they feel like it. They must understand that a bomb thrown at a Jewish bus is going to mean a bomb thrown at an Arab bus.”

So, a bomb thrown at a Jewish school bus will be a bomb thrown at an Arab school bus, then. That is evil.

“I suppose you have found a way to be connected to nothing and no one, everything and everyone? You wouldn’t be having this conversation with me if that were true.”

I have never advocated such disconnection.

“I assumed you are in your middle twenties. That would make you 10 years younger then me.”

Close enough. I’m 22.

“My son is learning numbers and letters. Politics, not so much.”

Ah, I thought there might be a hidden meaning.

Get your facts straight next time bud, this was great otherwise.