This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Political: Michele Bachmann signs controversial pledge
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
xaratherus
Conservative/Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann today became the first candidate to sign a rather controversial pledge, the Family Leader pledge. Included in this pledge is a disavowing of a number of social issues, including gay marriage, "easy" divorce, premarital sex, and pornography.
However, the most controversial part of the pledge is not yet getting much in the way of news coverage. The pledge declares that "unmistakably, the institution of marriage in America is in great crisis", and then continues on to say the following:
"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President."
Now, I'm trying to be fair-minded about this. I'm already opposed to anyone signing this pledge for a number of reasons (not limited to gay marriage, an issue important to me, as many of you may know).
But what I'm reading here is this: The authors of this pledge consider an African American child, born into slavery, with the constant threat of his family being torn apart by being "sold upriver", with a legal and social status equivalent to a horse or other working animal, and with no guarantee of any personal freedoms, to somehow be better off than an African American child today who happens to live in a single-parent household.
To me, this pledge illustrates a sharp and dangerous disconnect from reality. Perhaps it's simply poorly-worded, but insinuating in
any
way that African Americans were somehow better off in slavery is just abhorrent.
Your thoughts?
Post by
gnomerdon
Sorry, when I read the whole thing, I spaced out. I'm gonna reread it again...
The pledge doesn't quite make sense to me, and it's pointing out that.......wait.. hmmmm... I would say it is poorly-worded because I still don't understand it....
okay, now that i've read it out loud. It says, a black kid in the past would be raised by his mother and father. But a black kid raised in today's world lives with his mom, or his dad. they don't live in the same household anymore. there could be some truth in it, but pointing it out isn't a good choice to make either.
depends on how you look at it. if a child lives in a single parent household, there could be more unpredictable variables.
how to be president: win the blacks and mexicans and u win.
He won't get my vote though.
this whole topic itself is confusing. :(
I would say that African americans will take offense to the statement he made. Are they called AFrican Americans? or Blacks? because I don't want to offend anyone........
edit: after reading my own post....... O...M...G.... wth did I just say.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
edit: after reading my own post....... O...M...G.... wth did I just say.QFT.
I myself consider this pledge a good thing. By making it, we can now be certain that this morally ugly person will not become President.
Post by
Meggie
It looks like war effort. America is in need for more cannon fodder for its future plan with the world.
Post by
Sweetscot
While most of that thing is garbage, in respect to the highlighted bit...
I see what they were trying to say but they chose a piss poor way of trying to get it across. They aren't trying to make any point about slavery, in fact if they'd thought about it for a second and had the brains to process what they're thinking they'd have realized the analogy is moronic...but in a nutshell they are simply trying to bemoan the number of divorces happening today.
While yes, I wish more people put a bit more thought into who they are marrying, why, and how that will work for them, and not jump ship at the first sign of trouble (certainly not meaning that all divorces fall into this catagory, many have very good reasons, but there ARE a good number doing what i'm talking about) and that marriage was still seen as mostly "permanent" there just aren't many ways of turning this cultural ship around regarding divorce.
Basically they probably just threw their electoral hopes down the garbage disposal for a "pledge" of stupidity.
Post by
292559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
120504
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Cambo
But what I'm reading here is this: The authors of this pledge consider an African American child, born into slavery, with the constant threat of his family being torn apart by being "sold upriver", with a legal and social status equivalent to a horse or other working animal, and with no guarantee of any personal freedoms, to somehow be better off than an African American child today who happens to live in a
single-parent household
.
I agree with how you came to that conclusion.
The problem with the 'moral majority' is that they are far too quick to judge. Nothing is clear cut these days; nothing is black and white.
Consider the following:
How many children worldwide have grown up in single-parent homes and have done well in life?
How many children worldwide have grown up with both biological parents yet have suffered irrepairable cruelties and more?
The pledge seems to be focusing on the traditional family unit, but people are zeroing in on the use of slavery as an example.
Though I fear this is just political spiel just to gain votes; the politician probably doesn't really honestly care. Win or lose, they won't do anything to aid society in creating a more close-knit community which will result in safer and better parenting.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.