NAACP issues travel advisory for Florida...

[Revoltingest]

No. Black people are not in dire danger in Florida.

It's that simple.

But fear mongering is so politically useful.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But fear mongering is so politically useful.

Apparently it is. People go nuts over nonsense like this.

 

[Stevicus]

I was born in 1948, and I watched a lot of that progress -- I'm very, very familiar with it, all the ups and downs, the lynchings and assassinations and the great, stirring speeches of MLK. During that time, I lived in Canada, always in multi-cultural and multi-ethnic/racial environments (my high school was a boys private boarding school that had students from all over the world -- run by Quakers -- I loved it!)

It is tearing me apart to see how America seems to be trying to tear itself apart -- for no real reason that I can see except the desire to be "top dog," to not let "the Jews replace us."

Honestly, I don't get it. At Toronto's Sikh Khalsa parade and festival, just three weeks ago, I had a Sikh gentleman teach me how to tie on a turban, with my lover watching -- we all had fun, and nobody hated each other. This happened at Dundas Square, at the very heart of Toronto's urban life (and Toronto is no mean city -- we're the 4th largest in all of North America).

Are Americans (or at least many of them) really so determined to "purify" the different folks out of their midst?

I can't really speak to everything that's happening in America, but I've lived in different areas and had different influences while growing up, both conservative and liberal. The ideas and attitudes coming from both sides are not new. Whatever dispute is going on in America is also not a new one.

However, America itself has changed quite a bit in recent times, and I also think that a large part of what we're seeing now is the result of media stimuli triggering predicted responses from their target faction.

 

[Stevicus]

Boy, oh boy...do I remember it differently. Republicans
were never secular. The only change was increased overt
involvement of conservative religious figures, & appearing
to cater to them. Religion in government was even worse
pre-Reagan (in my experience).
We had public school teacher led Christian prayer & Bible
stories. We had politicians wanting to kill the "godless"
commies in the far east. Atheism was more hated then.
Things are better now for atheists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/09/16/goldwater-lashes-religious-pressure/b1caa379-49fa-4e04-82de-dccda6f5e7f9/

Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), long the symbol of the conservative movement, said yesterday he will fight "every step of the way" against religious groups that seek to pressure public officials.

In a breakfast interview with a group of reporters and in a speech on the Senate floor, the 1964 Republican presidential nominee said, "I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that, if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C or D....I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate."

Goldwater clashed sharply a few weeks ago with anti-abortion groups and the Moral Majority, when they criticized President Reagan's choice of Arizona Circuit Judge Sandra Day O'Connor for the Supreme Court. He told reporters yesterday morning he had been looking for a public forum in which to broaden his attack. After rehearsing the speech at breakfast, he decided to deliver it on the Senate floor.

"I don't like the New Right," Goldwater said. "What they're talking about is not conservatism."

In the formal speech, the Arizonan asked Americans to "look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northern Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon," all of which he said stemmed from "injecting religious issues into the affairs of state."

"By maintaining the separation of church and state," Goldwater said, "the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars."

Citing such groups as the Moral Majority and "pro-life" organizations, Goldwater called "the religious factions that are growing throughout our land...a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength."

He said, "Far too much of the time of members of Congress and officials of the Executive Branch is used up dealing with special-interest groups on issues like abortion, school busing, ERA, prayer in the schools and pornography."

Other leading Republicans, Nixon, Ford, Rockefeller, never really struck me as particularly pious or really mentioned religion all that much - not as much as Reagan and his supporters.

 

[SomeRandom]

9/11 was definitely a watershed moment for America, although the circumstances leading up to 9/11 started probably around the time of the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, which then led to Reagan's election. The post-Vietnam, post-Watergate era led to a certain anti-militaristic viewpoint, as well as one of greater tolerance, but once footage of Iranians burning our flag, saying "death to America," and leading blindfolded hostages out in front of angry mobs, any chance for a peaceful, tolerant America pretty much evaporated at that point.

Reagan also appealed to the so-called "moral majority," which was a reaction to various movements which came out of the 60s, believing that America was becoming too immoral and permissive. It should be noted that a lot of the leading Republicans up until that time were far more secular and felt that religious right was too radical. Even the grandfather of conservativism, Barry Goldwater, somewhat eschewed the religious right, although not so much as to abandon them entirely.

In the ensuing decades, there was a resurgence in American militarism which continued even after the end of the Cold War, which eventually triggered 9/11, which led to a doubling-down of the same process Reagan set in motion 20 years earlier.

Wow!
Didn’t know that
Damn

 

[Stevicus]

You should consider other malefactors,
eg, Eisenhower (1953 Iranian coup).
Johnson (Viet Nam war), bi-partisan
Congress authorizing the 2 big wars.

Oh I do, but after Nixon, Ford continued to withdraw from Vietnam - even though South Vietnam was going down the drain. Not exactly America's finest hour, but at least it was a move in the direction of peace. Carter, too, seemed more peaceful, and overall, America was moving in a more peaceful and anti-militaristic direction. Attitudes quickly changed as a result of the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis which led to Reagan's election in 1980.

 

[Revoltingest]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/09/16/goldwater-lashes-religious-pressure/b1caa379-49fa-4e04-82de-dccda6f5e7f9/

Other leading Republicans, Nixon, Ford, Rockefeller, never really struck me as particularly pious or really mentioned religion all that much - not as much as Reagan and his supporters.

We remember that age differently.
I noticed the religiosity in the 50s.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh I do, but after Nixon, Ford continued to withdraw from Vietnam - even though South Vietnam was going down the drain. Not exactly America's finest hour, but at least it was a move in the direction of peace. Carter, too, seemed more peaceful, and overall, America was moving in a more peaceful and anti-militaristic direction. Attitudes quickly changed as a result of the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis which led to Reagan's election in 1980.

You see Reagan is the beginning of evil.
I see a pattern over a longer time frame.

 

[Stevicus]

You see Reagan is the beginning of evil.
I see a pattern over a longer time frame.

No, the evil existed over most of the history, and then, there was a brief period when America was starting to become more enlightened, mainly in the 60s and 70s. Reagan marks the reversion back to what we were before.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Other leading Republicans, Nixon, Ford, Rockefeller, never really struck me as particularly pious or really mentioned religion all that much - not as much as Reagan and his supporters.

That is because the not-moral non-majority wasn't much a thing until that unholy alliance went to the White House.

 

[We Never Know]

There has always been varying levels of political divide, but it's definitely been more prominent the last decade or two. The internet undoubtedly has a lot to do with it, giving billions easy access to information and communication.

The internet does give people access to more information.... But also to even more BS

 

[Twilight Hue]

That is because the not-moral non-majority wasn't much a thing until that unholy alliance went to the White House.

And look at where we are now.

Good job.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Wow!
Didn’t know that
Damn

Its opinion. No sources.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Its opinion. No sources.

It's not opinion. Things did indeed change after 9/11.

 

[SomeRandom]

Its opinion. No sources.

Mate, I might not be American.
But even I noticed changes post 9/11.
And if it changed in my country, a country that could only watch on in horror, I sincerely doubt America didn’t have anything happen to it.
You guys are human, not made of metal.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But if we set it to music, it makes for a nice Cha-Cha...

But seriously, this is how social progress always happens: In any period of rapid social change, there's always some group that fears the consequence and tries to push back -- they may succeed partially, but never completely, and never in the long term.

I wonder about that -- there was a time when Islam was the protector of much of the ancient wisdom and then-modern science in the world. Now, not so much. There are more books translated into Spanish every week than there are into Arabic in a year. And women reading terrifies them. And don't even ask about their tolerance for LGBTQ+ issues! And that is in large measure a function of a religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, the evil existed over most of the history, and then, there was a brief period when America was starting to become more enlightened, mainly in the 60s and 70s. Reagan marks the reversion back to what we were before.

Isn't "reversion back" redundant?

 

[Colt]

I saw somewhere where a person said
“America seemed to be going forward. Then 9/11 happened and we threw all of that away out of shock and hurt.”

That stuck with me. But as I’m not American and barely old enough to remember a pre 9/11 world, I was curious if you think that thought process holds any weight?

The Left is dividing the country by creating an allusion that America is primarily racist. The allusion that anyone who fails or gets into trouble of any kind is the victim of an imaginary white supremacy conspiracy.

 

[Father Heathen]

The Left is dividing the country by creating an allusion that America is primarily racist. The allusion that anyone who fails or gets into trouble of any kind is the victim of an imaginary white supremacy conspiracy.

The Right is dividing the country with it's constant assault on liberty, equality, science, separation of church and state, the environment, schools, libraries, the medical field, LGBT rights, women's rights, reproductive freedom, workers, consumers, the poor, accountability, justice, etc.

The Right is hellbent on reducing America to a filthy, third world theocracy.

 

[We Never Know]

I saw somewhere where a person said
“America seemed to be going forward. Then 9/11 happened and we threw all of that away out of shock and hurt.”

That stuck with me. But as I’m not American and barely old enough to remember a pre 9/11 world, I was curious if you think that thought process holds any weight?

IMO 9/11 took away our thoughts of "it won't happen to us" and it did **** a lot of people off.