The difference between Byrd joining the Klan 60 years ago and Bush visiting Bob Jones U. 4 years ago is about 56 years.

No other difference.

Wow, we figured the democratization in the Middle East might unhinge you--must be quite a strain being so wrong about so much so often....

Are you contending that a decent person would visit BJU?

If so, you're wrong.

Pandering to Southern racists is pandering to Southern racists. Period.

The people who attend it are decent too.

Harry,

I don't understand the BJU thing either. My general sense is that they can run a 'university' any way they wish, but that someone who wants my vote shouldn't see them as being on the side of the angels. But then I don't live in South Carolina and don't know much about it besides Charleston and South of the Border.

As for Byrd, he has been the Senate's foremost opponent of Israel for about 2 decades, and his record on civil rights for racial minorities is dreary at best. He may claim to have quit the Klan, but my best guess is that he still keeps the robe in his bedroom closet, nicely cleaned and pressed so that he can use it as necessary.

Harry

It's my understanding that Bob Jones U changed their policy against interacial dating after Bush visited. So it would appear his visit was beneficial.

Bart:

Harry can't differentiate between a private religious institution and a terrorist gang.

Sure he can. Private religious institutions are evil. Nice to have you back, Harry.

Protein Wisdom,"My sixth brief conversation with Senator Robert Byrd's (D-WV) Grand Kleagle hood"

Joe: beat me to it, thanks.

"was either sitting or laying down on the escalator". Darwinism at work.

fyi the escalator at the Porter Square stop is huge - about 75 ft from top to bottom - it takes a good 2-3 minutes to go up it if you don't walk up at the same time.

My list of things to add to the "safe to hate" list included Bob Jones University, but didn't include it yesterday as I figured by now that was one of those things that had been forgotten. I forgot that for those on the Left, no sin by their opponents is ever fogotten.

My seventh brief conversation with Senator Robert Byrd's (D-WV) Grand Kleagle hood

No decent person is associated with BJU. Period.

There are some things a decent person would not do, and pandering for a few votes at BJU would be on anybody's list.

It does not matter whether it is a private organization. The Klan too is a private Christian organization, but you guys seem to be able to maintain an animus against it.

Harry:

No, the Klan was a public organization physically attacking non-members.

Private racism and bigotry is no big deal, we all practice it. (Indeed, I know no one more bigoted than you.) Public violence is another matter.

There's a distinction without a difference.

BJU is not unknown to throw its weight around, too, by the way. Southern newspapermen, many of whom matriculated at BJU, are full of stories.

But if you're going to take up defending private indecency, then I think you have to change your views on homosexuality.

Why? They can bugger themselves senseless in private, just keep it there.

OJ

Not if you burn them first.

You better clean your finger before pointing out someone else's spots.

Self-righteousness isn't decency, Harry. You keep trying to anoint yourself the arbiter of who is decent and who isn't, as though you could convert your own rancidity to righteousness simply by being angry enough. It's no wonder you're riding to the Kleagle's defense, you've got that in common with him.

Jeff:

You only have to burn the ones who make themselves public issues.

Where did I say anything good about Byrd? I didn't.

I said something hateful about Bush. He earned it.

You don't have to like what Bush did there, Harry. You do have to tone down the imperiousness just a bit. Nobody here buys it except you.

joe:

Such are legion.

Praising your friends and condemning your enemies for the same behavior is common coin around here. It's a form of political psychosis.

Joining the Klan differs from speaking at a college. Bob Jones taught some odd things, so do most. It teaches many better things, few do.

Equating the two is a symptom of a hatred of religion so obsessive that it's left you unbalanced.

OJ,

I think you are overstating things. Let us posit a situation wherein there was Adolf Hitler University which had some cachet in some American state, for whatever reason. Would it be appropriate for an American Presidential candidate to speak there without using it as some kind of 'Sistah Souljah' moment?

There are certainly some repellent aspects to the BJU philosophy. So where does a potential candidate draw the line?

Bart:

They speak at universities all the time that teach far more repellant things and have immoral policies.

Meanwhile, should the President not appear with Joe Liberman whose faith opposes intermarriage?

That's a bogus argument, well below your usual standard. Pretty much every Western faith opposes religious intermarriage. Orthodox Christianity certainly does, as do most forms of Protestantism. Catholic practice seems to be all over the map. As you've pointed out, religion is a mutable characteristic, 'race' is not. Sammy Davis Jr could become a Jew, but he could not become White. For the nonce, I will refrain from referencing Michael Jackson but he may be the exception that proves the rule.

It is pretty hard to go further than exterminating people for ethnic characteristics on most peoples' Repel-O-Meter. BJU's position on inter-racial dating probably offends far more Americans far more greatly, than the pro-choice position of most university faculties.

Bart:

Wanna bet?

However, your "we do it and it's okay, but they do it and it's evil" argument sums up the situation nicely.

Abortion remains legal and state bans on interracial marriage are not. I would also recommend that you consider the popularity of Vin Diesel, the Rock and Halle Berry, all of whom are mixed-race, and in the Rock's case at least 3 races.

As for religious intermarriage, a denomination has an interest in seeing that the children of its members are raised in that faith. So, in a free society, where we have both freedom of religion and freedom of association, they should be permitted to interpose whatever barriers they wish. BJU has the right to do what it does but 'race' is such a bogus category that it shouldn't be used as a means of making a distinction. A 'racial' distinction shocks the conscience of most of us and has no logical basis in Western intellectual history.

The experience of the children of intermarried people I've met who fail to make a religious choice is pretty awful. Should the parents decide to get divorced, the religious issue become another football in the divorce game. There are more than a few examples of a parent taking the kids to be baptized while she's in custody despite the non-custodial parent's disapproval.

Speaking personally, I would make a choice in an intermarriage situation and that would be the end of it.

Bart:

Yes, both were imposed by courts, not by popular opinion.

But you accidentally raise a germane argument: a politician who speaks at a university that performs abortions where courses teach that such immoralities are permissible can not be said to therefore support the barbarity, can he?

Popular opinion supports both today, and no referendum has banned even partial birth abortion yet.

It all depends on circumstances. If a politician goes to Bob Jones University and speaks to the general convocation and says how much he loves the school and how great a guy he thinks Jones is, that is totally different from being invited to a fundraiser/get-together by the Bob Jones College GOP, and certainly a far cry from being invited to a candidates' forum hosted by the Poli Sci department.

No it doesn't.

OJ,

I'll rely on the Colorado and Washington referenda. You can rely on oracle bones or cat entrails or whatever it is you do, OK?

CO was the first state to ban state funds for abortion, via referendum. FL just passed a parental notification referendum. there've been plenty. Of course you can't get rid of what the Court calls a right vias referendum, so there aren't many. the Congressional vote was indicative of the hostility to partial birth.

State funds and legalization are two completely different matters. It should certainly be legal for people to eat lobster, it is quite another that I should pay for it.

Parental notification laws are popular for some unknown reason. If the girl is such a tramp that she gets herself knocked up, what makes anyone on Planet Earth think that telling her folks should stop an abortion. I know that among my relatives, both Jewish and Christian,including Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians, they would demand she got one. Their anger would be at what she was doing having sex in the first place, and once she decided to have sex what was she thinking of not taking the proper precautions. I know my dad took a lot of time instructing me about the importance of contraception, not just for parental reasons but health issues as well.

The Congressional vote is an indicator of intensity on the issue. Among the people for whom a politician's position on abortion matters, the vast majority are pro-life.

Yes, voters.