The irony of the New York Times’ 1619 Project...

[seer]

No seer - whether or not the gerrymandering would be done if black people voted a different way does not make what is happening not an instance of racism. That is the part you will not admit, the part of the problem you ignore or try to hide when you cut the critical elements that show the problem out of my posts when you reply.

Not too many years ago, there were literacy tests that people had to pass to be able to vote. The reason for the exam was ostensibly to prevent people incapable of making an informed judgement from voting. But these tests where essentially vehicles for racial discrimination, because the years and years of discrimination and abuse of black people left a larger majority of them unable to pass that test than white people. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made the use of those tests much less capable of being used for their racially biased purpose and even though technically they are not 'illegal', their use has been virtually eliminated.

Placing a large group of black voters in a single district to limit the power of their votes is no different than what was happening with literacy tests seer. People can 'claim' it's 'just' political, you can postulate this wouldn't be done if black people voted republican, but the bottom line is that the voice of black people is being silenced. Black people are not free to vote their conscience and have that count the same as a white person's vote. And that is racism.

Sorry Jim, I just don't see it that way. If you agree that this would not have happened if blacks were loyal Republican voters how can you say the intent was racist, tangentially race was involved but it seems clear that political affiliation was the main driver. Like when liberals redistrict in their particular states like mine.

I am glad we can at least agree there. Voting should be 1 person, 1 vote. Race, political persuasion, religion, No element of who a person is should change the effect of that person's vote. If 500 people vote in an election, then their 500 votes should count the exact same amount in the outcome of that election regardless of whether they are white, hispanic, black, Christian, Muslim, or atheist, male of female.

Gerrymandering violates that basic principle. And ANYTHING that violates that principle becomes just one more way racist people can underhandedly restrict the effect of a minority race's vote while hiding behind some other 'non-racist' excuse, just like happened with literacy tests.

And quite simply it should be illegal.

Now - to amplify that point. There is hard drive data that shows that in NC the gerrymandering that happened there was NOT based on 'political' data, but RACIAL data. And proof was revealed in 2017.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/north...b0b08cf7eb18fb

Source: above

, the lawyers said.

© Copyright Original Source

and

Source: above

Stephanie Hofeller told The New York Times in an interview that allies of her father were putting pressure on her to keep the hard drives private. That pressure, she told the Times, only made her more resistant to do so.

© Copyright Original Source

Jim

I have no doubt that they targeted blacks, but was that because of race, or because blacks vote 90% Democrat? But I personally would not have have a problem with applying a civics test when people first register to vote. There are people voting who don't even know who the Vice President is, they have no concept of the three branches of Government, what a representative Republic is, etc... Why should the politically ignorant vote, black white or brown? Why is that good for our country?

[Sam]

Looks like this thread is tapped; thanks for the discussion, Adrift.

Thanks to everyone for the time. Enjoy the autumn and remember to welcome the stranger in your land, opposing those who would commit the sin of Sodom.

-Sam

[rogue06]

Looks like this thread is tapped; thanks for the discussion, Adrift.

Thanks to everyone for the time. Enjoy the autumn and remember to welcome the stranger in your land, opposing those who would commit the sin of Sodom.

-Sam

I'm not sure that was the sin of Sodom.

[seer]

I'm not sure that was the sin of Sodom.

The hospitality drivel...

[KingsGambit]

The hospitality drivel...

If you want to dismiss it as drivel then you have to remove Ezekiel 16 from your Bible because the phrase "sin of Sodom" comes from that chapter.

[seer]

If you want to dismiss it as drivel then you have to remove Ezekiel 16 from your Bible because the phrase "sin of Sodom" comes from that chapter.

2 Peter 2:7-8 New International Version (NIV)
"And if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard."

I don't think Peter is speaking of in-hospitality, and: Ez.16 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."

And I don't think the detestable things is in-hospitality. Both point to sexual sin, which was rampart.

[KingsGambit]

2 Peter 2:7-8 New International Version (NIV)
"And if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard."

I don't think Peter is speaking of in-hospitality, and: Ez.16 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."

And I don't think the detestable things is in-hospitality. Both point to sexual sin, which was rampart.

Sexual immorality was part of it but neither part of the passage is irrelevant, and neither part can be downplayed.

[seer]

Sexual immorality was part of it but neither part of the passage is irrelevant, and neither part can be downplayed.

Ok...

[rogue06]

Sexual immorality was part of it but neither part of the passage is irrelevant, and neither part can be downplayed.

In any case I don't think the sin was one of not welcoming but rather how they made them unwelcome

[KingsGambit]

In any case I don't think the sin was one of not welcoming but rather how they made them unwelcome

I agree that the sexual immorality is what appears to have prompted the destruction of the city. Nonetheless, the focus in Ezekiel is more on the other aspects. This doesn't downplay that; it just means that God was focusing on those other issues at the time of Ezekiel and was illustrating that particular point using the allusion to Genesis. If Ezekiel was prophesying to San Francisco, it might have been the other way around. So I don't understand the need to downplay the apparent focus on lack of love for others in Ezekiel; it's not like discussing this even remotely implies homosexuality is okay. (And seer calling it "drivel" was completely out of line.)

[rogue06]

I agree that the sexual immorality is what appears to have prompted the destruction of the city. Nonetheless, the focus in Ezekiel is more on the other aspects. This doesn't downplay that; it just means that God was focusing on those other issues at the time of Ezekiel and was illustrating that particular point using the allusion to Genesis. If Ezekiel was prophesying to San Francisco, it might have been the other way around. So I don't understand the need to downplay the apparent focus on lack of love for others in Ezekiel; it's not like discussing this even remotely implies homosexuality is okay. (And seer calling it "drivel" was completely out of line.)

I'm not trying to emphasize the sexual immorality so much as the apparent desire to assault and likely kill.

[KingsGambit]

I'm not trying to emphasize the sexual immorality so much as the apparent desire to assault and likely kill.

But you would not get that at all from Ezekiel 16:49, which is what leads off the relevant passage. Violence does not appear at all in view there.

My only point is that Sam should not have been criticized for this particular post. The fact that it has been used in a logically fallacious manner to downplay homosexuality by many does not invalidate the truth in his particular post.

[One Bad Pig]

I agree that the sexual immorality is what appears to have prompted the destruction of the city. Nonetheless, the focus in Ezekiel is more on the other aspects. This doesn't downplay that; it just means that God was focusing on those other issues at the time of Ezekiel and was illustrating that particular point using the allusion to Genesis. If Ezekiel was prophesying to San Francisco, it might have been the other way around. So I don't understand the need to downplay the apparent focus on lack of love for others in Ezekiel; it's not like discussing this even remotely implies homosexuality is okay. (And seer calling it "drivel" was completely out of line.)

"Haughty and doing detestable things" would not seem to me to exclude violent acts. Seer calling the banality of reducing the charge to "inhospitality" drivel is absolutely in line; it does not begin to cover the error of the cities' ways, and is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the charges against them.

[firstfloor]

[One Bad Pig]

Thanks for the recommend. Now I know I can safely find something else to listen to.