Speaking in support of a proposed state constitutional ban on same-sex unions, one Rev. Hayes Wicker of First Baptist Church in Naples, Fla., was recently quoted by the Naples Daily News as saying, "This is a tremendous social crisis, greater even than the issue of slavery."
I'm thinking someone doesn't have any sense of proportion. You can read more at Pam's House Blend, of course, but just for starters... slavery caused the Civil War. You know, brother fighting against brother, states seceding from the Union and waging war against one another, over 600,000 soldiers killed by fellow Americans? That's not even getting into the decades of conflict before that, stretching back all the way to the founding of the country. There was the Three-Fifths Compromise, the fights over whether new states would enter as free or slave, Bleeding Kansas, etc., all of which led up to the country being split in two and fighting amongst itself. How on earth can any rational person think that gay marriage tops that in terms of being a "social crisis"?
For that matter, how can any person with the tiniest scrap of decency think it fitting at all to compare gay marriage with slavery? One involves the subjugation and dehumanization of millions of people, stripping them of any freedoms, ripping apart families, and wanton cruelty that includes whippings, nailing people to posts by their ears, and rape. The other doesn't. If you're not sure which is which, and hence which is worse, then you have a lot of problems.
Unless, of course, this is his tacit admission that he's willing to wage another civil war and murder over half a million people in order to keep gays from enjoying equal rights.
6 comments:
Actually, the Civil War was fought because of socio-economic reasons, not slavery. The North was a Capitalist Republic, while the South was a feudal oligarchy, complete with a landed aristocracy. Slavery wasn't that big a factor, except that it benefited a feudal society to have serfs, while it was a detriment to a capitalist economy to have them; slavery was merely one aspect in a multi-faceted conflict between the old and the new.
As an aside, if you look into the history of conservatism in the US, the only thing that has been consistent with them is the desire for a king. Coincidence? I think not.
Actually, the Civil War was fought because of socio-economic reasons, not slavery.
That would tend to contradict all the people who seceded and claimed that slavery was their reason for doing so. For instance, South Carolina--the first state to secede--published a declaration announcing its reasons for doing so. Nowhere were economic issues brought up. It was all about slavery. From Wikipedia:
At issue were:
* The refusal of Northern states to enforce the fugitive slave code, violating Southern personal property rights;
* Agitation against slavery, which "denied the rights of property".
* Assisting "thousands of slaves to leave their homes" through the Underground Railroad.
* The election of Lincoln "because he has declared that 'Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,' and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction".
* "...elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens". Most Northerners opposed the Dred Scott decision, although only a few New England states allowed blacks an equal right to vote.
You can of course see for yourself.
As an aside, if you look into the history of conservatism in the US, the only thing that has been consistent with them is the desire for a king.
Um. How's that?
That's always the message I get when the good ol' boys start whining about states' rights and comparing gay marriage (or any other manifestation of the separation of church and state) to the Civil War: it's a threat. They have most of the guns and pickup trucks, after all.
That's always the message I get when the good ol' boys start whining about states' rights and comparing gay marriage (or any other manifestation of the separation of church and state) to the Civil War: it's a threat.
Yeah, I'm not sure how else to interpret that sort of thing. It's not like the Civil War was a natural consequence of anything, so they can't say "X will lead to another Civil War!" without admitting that they're willing to fight another war over it.
(I'm the first anonymous, BTw.)
The elite in the South, that being the landed white gentry that were the primary slave-holders, made that case. The reason is, a lot of the white underclass were nominally against slavery. Not because they were for freedom or equality for blacks, but because slavery impoverished share croppers and focused wealth upwards to the white gentry.
The aristocratic whites requirerd slavery to maintain their leisure, so by framing the conflict as one against slavery, which did not benefit the average white, and not against capitalism, which would have benefited the average white.
Finally, I'd like to note that the civil war did nothing to change black's station in society, it just forced a redistribution of wealth outwards to other whites.
The elite in the South, that being the landed white gentry that were the primary slave-holders, made that case.
And as they were the ones ruling the South and the ones that seceded, that tends to lend credence to my assertion that the Civil War was over slavery.
You seem to be trying to make the case that working class Southern whites were against slavery, or that fighting a war for slavery would have been against their best interests, and therefore they weren't fighting for slavery. However, people can defend things that might be against their best interests. Or that they might believe it would be good for them even if economically it might hurt them. I believe the book What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery and the Civil War, by Chandra Manning, explores what the soldiers themselves thought (rather than the aristocratic slave-holders) and finds that, yes, Confederate soldiers were fighting to defend slavery.
Finally, I'd like to note that the civil war did nothing to change black's station in society
Well, it did make them free men as opposed to slaves. That was a big start. But yes, it did not erase racism, and after Reconstruction the Jim Crow laws just entrenched blacks at the bottom of society. What of it, though?
Post a Comment