Jump to content

Integrity


Guest Paul
 Share

Recommended Posts

The religious right wing in the USA constantly accuses nearly everyone it doesn't agree with of hypocrisy. The truth is that what the extremist right sees as hypocrisy is merely that some people do not agree with them. Their criticisms of the ACLU, for example, completely overlook the fundamental legal principles on which the ACLU bases its decisions about which cases to take on; it's not about which person or group is popular, but about legal principles.

Obviously, principles do not matter to the radical right. All they care about is having their way by any means, legitimate or illegitimate.

The religious right has made hypocriscy an art form. Case in point: the current "controversy." There is no real controversy here. The teacher was out of line and the student caught him. End of story, or it should have been. When you really look at how the right has tried to spin this story, you see the hypocrisy.

George W. Bush is one of the religious right's political heroes. Throughout his campaigns for president and his time in office, he has made a point of his unwillingness to back down even when people disagree with him. That unwillingness extended so far that he was willing and eager to overlook obvious facts, the result of which is that our beloved country, the world's only military superpower, is now mired in an unwinnable civil war in Iraq at great cost to our national security, our standing in the world, the world's stability, and the war on terror itself --- which many of us saw as the obvious and inevitable outcome from the beginning. And lately, now that the American people have turned against him, Mr. Bush tells us that he will persist on this path of insanity even if his only supporters are his wife and his dog. There is a difference between standing one's ground and being stubborn. That difference does not matter to the religious right because Bush was their guy no matter what stand he took on the war --- and anyway they love a guy who talks tough.

Matthew LaClair has also stood his ground. However, in contrast to George W. Bush, he has done so on a firm foundation of fact and law. It is amazing to watch detractors from the radical religious right --- which is exactly where this is coming from --- criticize him for having the integrity to stand his ground, which is what they claim to admire in Mr. Bush. (Never mind that Mr. Bush's concept of integrity omits the essential feature of conforming oneself to the facts and the law.) It is amazing to watch them criticize me for "putting Matthew through all this," even as they criticize and berate him and do everything in their power to try to make him miserable --- as though they cared one bit about my son. How convenient it is for these extremists to stomp and kick their feet and insist that Matthew back down from the truth and the law --- and they will do it by any means they deem necessary, regardless of the cost to anyone. They don't care whom they hurt.

These people must be treated as the spoiled child in the family --- the one who kicks and screams until he gets his way. The only way for a healthy family to deal with that is not put up with it. There's no talking with these people: they're not listening. There's no reasoning with these people: they don't care about reason. There's no trying to find common ground with these people: it's their way or the highway. The facts, the law and the very underpinnings of our democratic system of government are of no concern to them at all. All that matters to them is getting what they want, at any and all cost to any one else.

Harsh? Yes.

True? Unfortunately so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The religious right wing in the USA constantly accuses nearly everyone it doesn't agree with of hypocrisy.

It does?

The truth is that what the extremist right sees as hypocrisy is merely that some people do not agree with them. Their criticisms of the ACLU, for example, completely overlook the fundamental legal principles on which the ACLU bases its decisions about which cases to take on; it's not about which person or group is popular, but about legal principles.

... and legal principles can never contradict themselves?

Obviously, principles do not matter to the radical right. All they care about is having their way by any means, legitimate or illegitimate.

Sweeping accusation? :lol:

Are you sure you're not talking about the legal profession? ;)

The religious right has made hypocriscy an art form. Case in point: the current "controversy." There is no real controversy here. The teacher was out of line and the student caught him. End of story, or it should have been. When you really look at how the right has tried to spin this story, you see the hypocrisy.

We do?

Where?

Matthew LaClair has also stood his ground.

He hasn't apologized for misquoting Paszkiewicz in his letter to the school yet, eh?

However, in contrast to George W. Bush, he has done so on a firm foundation of fact and law.

Like when he informed Paszkiewicz that he could not quote from the Bible in public school or when he informed Paszkiewicz that answering a certain question about Christian doctrine in a public school was "never appropriate"?

It is amazing to watch detractors from the radical religious right --- which is exactly where this is coming from --- criticize him for having the integrity to stand his ground, which is what they claim to admire in Mr. Bush.

Criticize him for having integrity? :wub: What a wordsmith you are, Paul!

I've criticized Matthew for getting his facts wrong and for taking statements out of context.

How much integrity do you have to have to get your facts wrong and take statements out of context?

How convenient it is for these extremists to stomp and kick their feet and insist that Matthew back down from the truth and the law --- and they will do it by any means they deem necessary, regardless of the cost to anyone. They don't care whom they hurt.

Weren't you the one declaring in a recent post to the effect that it wasn't Matthew's responsibility to worry about whether Paszkiewicz lost his job (and his family's subsistence)?

Maybe I'm on the wrong track, here. Maybe if you have in mind somebody specific to hurt, it's all good.

There's no reasoning with these people: they don't care about reason. There's no trying to find common ground with these people: it's their way or the highway.

Wasn't the tort claim form filed in essence because the LaClairs had not gotten their way?

The school reprimanded (AFAICT) Paszkiewicz and instituted policies with which the LaClairs apparently agree.

Not good enough. Apologize and whatever else--maybe then they won't sue.

The facts, the law and the very underpinnings of our democratic system of government are of no concern to them at all.

Well, I think you're flat wrong on that point. Religious conservatives have come to increasingly realize that the courts have turned into the fast track for legislation that wouldn't pass legislatively. Justices freely interpreting the laws invent legislative responsibilities that usurp power from both the voters and their representatives.

The issue in Kearny is a case in point. No law was ever passed prohibiting the types of actions that Paszkiewicz is accused of doing (much less those that he actually did). To any extent that the law would proscribe such actions, it is through elaboration of the laws in a series of judicial decisions--irrespective of the voters and their representatives.

All that matters to them is getting what they want, at any and all cost to any one else.

Harsh? Yes.

True? Unfortunately so.

You sound kinda bigoted. Bad week at the office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
The religious right wing in the USA constantly accuses nearly everyone it doesn't agree with of hypocrisy. The truth is that what the extremist right sees as hypocrisy is merely that some people do not agree with them. Their criticisms of the ACLU, for example, completely overlook the fundamental legal principles on which the ACLU bases its decisions about which cases to take on; it's not about which person or group is popular, but about legal principles.

Obviously, principles do not matter to the radical right. All they care about is having their way by any means, legitimate or illegitimate.

The religious right has made hypocriscy an art form. Case in point: the current "controversy." There is no real controversy here. The teacher was out of line and the student caught him. End of story, or it should have been. When you really look at how the right has tried to spin this story, you see the hypocrisy.

George W. Bush is one of the religious right's political heroes. Throughout his campaigns for president and his time in office, he has made a point of his unwillingness to back down even when people disagree with him. That unwillingness extended so far that he was willing and eager to overlook obvious facts, the result of which is that our beloved country, the world's only military superpower, is now mired in an unwinnable civil war in Iraq at great cost to our national security, our standing in the world, the world's stability, and the war on terror itself --- which many of us saw as the obvious and inevitable outcome from the beginning. And lately, now that the American people have turned against him, Mr. Bush tells us that he will persist on this path of insanity even if his only supporters are his wife and his dog. There is a difference between standing one's ground and being stubborn. That difference does not matter to the religious right because Bush was their guy no matter what stand he took on the war --- and anyway they love a guy who talks tough.

Matthew LaClair has also stood his ground. However, in contrast to George W. Bush, he has done so on a firm foundation of fact and law. It is amazing to watch detractors from the radical religious right --- which is exactly where this is coming from --- criticize him for having the integrity to stand his ground, which is what they claim to admire in Mr. Bush. (Never mind that Mr. Bush's concept of integrity omits the essential feature of conforming oneself to the facts and the law.) It is amazing to watch them criticize me for "putting Matthew through all this," even as they criticize and berate him and do everything in their power to try to make him miserable --- as though they cared one bit about my son. How convenient it is for these extremists to stomp and kick their feet and insist that Matthew back down from the truth and the law --- and they will do it by any means they deem necessary, regardless of the cost to anyone. They don't care whom they hurt.

These people must be treated as the spoiled child in the family --- the one who kicks and screams until he gets his way. The only way for a healthy family to deal with that is not put up with it. There's no talking with these people: they're not listening. There's no reasoning with these people: they don't care about reason. There's no trying to find common ground with these people: it's their way or the highway. The facts, the law and the very underpinnings of our democratic system of government are of no concern to them at all. All that matters to them is getting what they want, at any and all cost to any one else.

Harsh? Yes.

True? Unfortunately so.

So prove it to a jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
The religious right wing in the USA constantly accuses nearly everyone it doesn't agree with of hypocrisy. The truth is that what the extremist right sees as hypocrisy is merely that some people do not agree with them. Their criticisms of the ACLU, for example, completely overlook the fundamental legal principles on which the ACLU bases its decisions about which cases to take on; it's not about which person or group is popular, but about legal principles.

Obviously, principles do not matter to the radical right. All they care about is having their way by any means, legitimate or illegitimate.

All you have to do is start a thread titled "Jesus is not the Messiah" with the subtitle, "If Mr. P were Jewish, could he say this in class?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Patty Griffin has a new song out which I dedicate to conservative talk radio.

"No Bad News"

Don't bring me bad news, no bad news

I don't need none of your bad news today

You're a sad little boy, anyone can see you're just a sad little boy

That's why you're carrying on that way

Why don't you burn it all down, burn your own house down, burn your own house down

Try to kill your own disease

And leave the rest of us, there's a lot of us, leave the rest of us

Who wanna live in peace to live in peace

I'm gonna find a brother, love him so well, love him so strong, love him so slow

We're gonna go way beyond the walls of this fortress

And we won't be afraid, we won't be afraid, and though the darkness may come our way

We won't be afraid to be alive anymore

And we'll grow kindness in our hearts for all the strangers among us

Till there are no strangers anymore

Don't bring me bad news, no bad news

I don't need none of your bad news today

You can't have my fear, I've got nothing to lose, can't have my fear

I'm not getting out of here alive anyway

And I don't need none of these things, I don't need none of these things

I've been handed

And the bird of peace is flying over, she's flying over and

Coming in for a landing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...