Filmproducer said:
I hardly think you have shown that affirmative action has led to the legalizing of vicitimizing white people. Yes, there have been a few cases where reverse discrimination has been proven, but again not enough to merit a biased workplace for white people.
For my part I think affirmative action was at one point necessary in this country. I do not feel that it is necessary today, and would not ahve a problem if it was relpealed. People should be judge on their merits, and that does not automatically mean if a black or minority person gets the job instead of you he/she didn't deserve it. (speaking generally here).
I am against government discrimination based upon race. Period.
Jim Crow laws, separate gov't facilities based on race: wrong.
Preference offered to blacks, hispanics, or any other minority, based on race: also wrong.
Reasons I feel that way:
1. If "all men are created equal" then our government should reflect that tenet. You can't have it both ways IMO. Men are either equal in government's eyes or they aren't. Affirmative Action means they aren't. So I'm against it.
2. Affirmative action has caused a tort log jam in our system. You have discrimination cases (which
could be valid), AA cases, reverse-discrimination cases, AA overturns,
new groups who want to use AA to their advantage (lots of this in the southern US, heightening tension between some African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans).
3. AA could make the jump from government-sanctioned quotas based on race (misguided IMO but with good motives often times) to quotas based on other factors (how long before the gay lobby pushes AA legislation?).
4. No one should
ever be denied a
public service based upon their race (government services, access common to all citizens, education IMO). No one should be denied
essential care for that reason (medical care, housing, etc., shouldn't be denied based upon race, IMO). However, in this country, we're coming close in some areas to enacting crimes of thought. This is the basis of hate-crime legislation. As repulsed as I am by racism, and as wrong as it is, and as much as God hates it (Because it mocks God's highest created thing--man in God's image--it is almost blasphemous to be racist)--it is not the job of government to legislate thought, but rather actions.
5. Bureaucracy is not very good at dissolving when it's no longer needed. If you doubt that, look at your phone bill...you're still paying a tax that was "only needed" for the Spanish-American War (turn of the 19th/20th century!). Once quotas are established, government cannot be counted on to undo them.
6. Once
any class of people, no matter their pigmentation or ethnicity, have a government-mandated inside track to jobs, benefits, etc. over others, they have a vested interest in keeping said advantage. It becomes difficult to undo the program--and it becomes difficult to objectively evaluate the need for such a program based on the vested interest of so many folks. This is true whether you're talking blacks in Mississippi, Native Americans in New Mexico, or Cubans in Miami.
Now...after that tome...I would like to see God's people front and center be the example of how we are all one race that needs Jesus equally. And unfortunately, in Alabama, many Baptists were part of the problem rather than the solution.
I'm so proud that my church, though they had a bunch-o-bigots a generation ago, is learning how through the power of Christ to be color-blind. We're quickly becoming a bag of mixed nuts for Jesus 'round these parts.:thumbs:
Was AA needed? Well, no doubt...we
had to jumpstart the process, especially in the South. But either way...AA should
never be a permanent goal, and if it is in place, the powers that be should be planning for a phase out ASAP. AA isn't the long-term answer at all.
