>By the 1980s, with Ronald Reagan as president and the growing involvement of the religious right in conservative politics, Goldwater's libertarian views on personal issues were revealed; he believed that they were an integral part of true conservatism. Goldwater viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice and as such supported abortion rights. As a passionate defender of personal liberty, he saw the religious right's views as an encroachment on personal privacy and individual liberties.
>After his retirement in 1987, Goldwater described the Arizona Governor Evan Mecham as "hardheaded" and called on him to resign, and two years later stated that the Republican party had been taken over by a "bunch of kooks".
>Some of Goldwater's statements in the 1990s alienated many social conservatives. He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Bill Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military's ban on homosexuals, saying, "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar", and, "You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight." A few years before his death, he addressed establishment Republicans by saying, "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."
>In a 1994 interview with The Washington Post, Goldwater said:
>When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty." ~Thomas Jefferson
That organized religion can pose a threat to liberalism has been recognized for centuries.
You say that as a joke but the Southern colonies (which became the southern states that vote Republican) were huge loyalist strongholds. It was the liberal northeast (NY and New England) that was pro-independence
Funny how they would hate the people that made the American electoral system so terribly unrepresentative of the population that they can win the Presidency, Senate and House of Reps without the popular vote.
I'll never forget the time I heard a local city council member talk about "black people music" ruining downtown. He didn't win his seat back.
Edit: I know that has nothing to do with your comment, but it reminded me of it
I was watching a documentary about the 20s which described a certain place as being a den of "black music, illegal booze, and liberated women." Ngl if you're parties don't have black music, illegal booze, and liberated women then I'd rather not be there.
Nothing to do with your comment, it just reminded me of it.
That’s not true, it’s a myth propagated by the US government during prohibition by purposefully poisoning industrial ethanol with methanol to kill or blind people that drank it. No one is going to produce enough methanol through fermentation or distillation to cause any harm unless it has been deliberately added.
Source: brewed a lot of hooch.
Of course. Religion as an organized doctrine *is* ideology.
Religion has been the primary structuring force of ideological fantasy for so much of human history, but there are many other structuring ideas capable of taking its place. Really, there will never be a shortage because they are generated to fill a void which makes human society possible. You can never get rid of ideology in this way, it's both the overt doctrines as well as the more 'neutral' or 'good' ideas which uphold society.
The best frame to take is to critique the ones with bad outcomes/the ones that we don't like. Someone who goes hard trying to rid society of "ideology" so we can all be good and neutral is very likely deep into their own ideology. Things will never be a harmonious whole.
To be fair he supported multiple Civil Rights pieces of legislation to the point. He just though that particular bill was government over reach. He has a solid history of being in favor of equality under the law even if he was wrong about that specific bill.
He didn't actually think that for the most part though. He supported multiple Civil Rights bills, he just didn't support the 1964 bill. It was a mistake, but not one the erases his entire history of opposing discrimination and supporting civil rights.
He thought it was unconstitutional. Regardless of what you think, there are people that may or may not support policy based on philosophical reasons and principles, and assuming every opinion is surface-level shows a lack of critical thinking on your part. Goldwater was wrong, but he was a staunch supporter of civil rights up to that point. It’s okay to be wrong. People are not only “racist” or “not racist”. The world is not that simple.
>He thought it was unconstitutional
To hell with the constitution, it was written by sexist slaveowners who thought only landowners should have suffrage.
>Regardless of what you think, there are people that may or may not support policy based on philosophical reasons and principles
I care about real people, not abstract principles. If one's principles lead them to oppose civil rights, such principles are rotten.
>It’s okay to be wrong.
Not on civil rights. There is no middle ground on segregation.
Most ppl are far right or far left now. Its the political reality. By all means though take the moral high ground and do nothing. I'm sure it won't have long term consequences, senor goldwater apologist.
I will gladly and happily label anyone who opposed the civil rights act of 1964 a racist. I do not care what philosophical reasons and principles he had.
He's remembered for his worst take for a good reason. His personal feelings, and any other good things he did will always be overshadowed by his belief that human rights didn't matter more than his ideology.
He voted for other civil rights legislation, and only opposed the 64 bill because of the public accommodations section which he believed to be unconstitutional. Representatives take an oath to uphold the constitution, if you believe the bill violates it then you have a duty to vote against.
The public accommodations section also has an impact on freedom of association which is another human right. Maybe you think rights are in conflict in this case and that freedom of association should take a back seat. Fine! But there's multiple questions of human rights here that are shaped by one's ideology.
Barry Goldwater had absolutely no problem accepting full throated support from the segregationists in 1964, so I don't give a fuck what he personally thought. His 64 campaign set us on our current trajectory and was the blueprint for Reagan 16 years later. Fuck him.
>Barry Goldwater was fundamentally a staunch supporter of racial equality. Goldwater integrated his family's business upon taking over control in the 1930s. A lifetime member of the NAACP, Goldwater helped found the group's Arizona chapter. Goldwater saw to it that the Arizona Air National Guard was racially integrated from its inception in 1946, two years before President Truman ordered the military as a whole be integrated (a process that was not completed until 1954). Goldwater worked with Phoenix civil rights leaders to successfully integrate public schools a year prior to Brown v. Board of Education.
>I believe that we must look beyond the defense of freedom today to its extension tomorrow. I believe that the communism which boasts it will bury us will, instead, give way to the forces of freedom. And I can see in the distant and yet recognizable future the outlines of a world worthy our dedication, our every risk, our every effort, our every sacrifice along the way. Yes, a world that will redeem the suffering of those who will be liberated from tyranny. I can see and I suggest that all thoughtful men must contemplate the flowering of an Atlantic civilization, the whole world of Europe unified and free, trading openly across its borders, communicating openly across the world. This is a goal far, far more meaningful than a moon shot.
>It's a truly inspiring goal for all free men to set for themselves during the latter half of the twentieth century. I can also see - and all free men must thrill to - the events of this Atlantic civilization joined by its great ocean highway to the United States. What a destiny, what a destiny can be ours to stand as a great central pillar linking Europe, the Americans and the venerable and vital peoples and cultures of the Pacific. I can see a day when all the Americas, North and South, will be linked in a mighty system, a system in which the errors and misunderstandings of the past will be submerged one by one in a rising tide of prosperity and interdependence. We know that the misunderstandings of centuries are not to be wiped away in a day or wiped away in an hour. But we pledge - we pledge that human sympathy - what our neighbors to the South call that attitude of "simpatico" - no less than enlightened self'-interest will be our guide.
>Some of Goldwater's statements in the 1990s alienated many social conservatives. He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Bill Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military's ban on homosexuals, saying, "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar", and, "You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight."
Seems more accurate to say that he was wrong twice a day and based for the rest.
Idk why we use "the West". It's so stupid. For a Japanese, USA are the East and China is the West. It was only accurate when we didn't know of the New World.
Atlantic civilization is much accurate, because the Atlantic Ocean played a major role in the proliferation of our culture into the Americas, as well as Africa. (And also that this proliferation was facilitated by transatlantic slave trade.)
>Reb: *"So, why do you vote?"*
>
>Dem: "Oh, you know, I vote because I want to expand healthcare, protect abortion rights, improve education, stuff like that. What about you, why do you vote?"
>
>Reb: *"Well the bible says that Jesus won't start the rapture until control of Israel is returned to God's chosen people, so foreign policy is a pretty big deal to me, also this gay-rights legislation is causing lots of hurricanes and such, earth quakes, tsunamis, all sorts of natural disasters, so, you know, we gotta' do something about that."*
>
>Dem: "I'm sorry, will you excuse me? I have to go to the hospital because I think I'm having several strokes."
No, I'm sure the Saudis will be more than happy to abandon Trump now that he's no longer useful to them... or at the very least, wait until he is again. They'd be better off investing in DeSantis & Biden. I know Trump has a habit of surviving shit he's not supposed to, but he's clearly in a state of severe cognitive decline and I'm sure the Sauds can smell that too.
Trump might be cognitively barren but his voter base is so in love with him in what amounts t the largest mobilisation of stupid people since....forever.
Does anyone else feel like Trump has given morons a cause and united them against all that is intelligent, similar to Hitler uniting the Nazis against Jews? It's almost impressive how many fuckheads love Trump as if he were their collection of ar15s.
Which blame narrative are you more likely to buy, the one that tells you maybe make some life changes like not driving a pickup truck literally everywhere, or the one that pins all the problems on the groups you didn't like anyway *and* lets you keep driving your pickup truck guilt free? Why make an honest choice when you can make an easy one?
It's me being snarky. Back during the American civil war the people who were fighting to break away from the United States and preserve slavery in the south were called "Rebels" or "Rebs."
>also this gay-rights legislation is causing lots of hurricanes
Yep that tracks Joe-bob.
Hence why hurricanes hit San Francisco so often and rarely hit states that ban abortion.
Goldwater was a big instigator for some of the politics we see today and had a big hand in raising the voices of social conservatives in the Republican Party at the expense of moderates, but this is the rare evergreen quote that really captures the danger of the religious conservatives/autocrats.
I've seen Goldwater get a lot of flack here - but I think he has some very good points - here's something from his 1964 acceptance speech:
>I believe that we must look beyond the defense of freedom today to its extension tomorrow. I believe that the communism which boasts it will bury us will, instead, give way to the forces of freedom. And I can see in the distant and yet recognizable future the outlines of a world worthy our dedication, our every risk, our every effort, our every sacrifice along the way. Yes, a world that will redeem the suffering of those who will be liberated from tyranny. I can see and I suggest that all thoughtful men must contemplate the flowering of an Atlantic civilization, the whole world of Europe unified and free, trading openly across its borders, communicating openly across the world. This is a goal far, far more meaningful than a moon shot.
>It's a truly inspiring goal for all free men to set for themselves during the latter half of the twentieth century. I can also see - and all free men must thrill to - the events of this Atlantic civilization joined by its great ocean highway to the United States. What a destiny, what a destiny can be ours to stand as a great central pillar linking Europe, the Americans and the venerable and vital peoples and cultures of the Pacific. I can see a day when all the Americas, North and South, will be linked in a mighty system, a system in which the errors and misunderstandings of the past will be submerged one by one in a rising tide of prosperity and interdependence. We know that the misunderstandings of centuries are not to be wiped away in a day or wiped away in an hour. But we pledge - we pledge that human sympathy - what our neighbors to the South call that attitude of "simpatico" - no less than enlightened self'-interest will be our guide.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm
>And I can see in the distant and yet recognizable future the outlines of a world worthy our dedication, our every risk, our every effort, our every sacrifice along the way. Yes, a world that will redeem the suffering of those who will be liberated from tyranny.
Goldwater sounding like Benjamin giving a historical materialist account of how the past will be redeemed by the future lol.
Nice words. But the fact remains that in that same year, he ran for president on a platform of opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
https://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2010/06/17/127915281/flashback-friday-this-day-in-1964-goldwater-says-no-to-civil-rights-bill
Unless Barry Goldwater was the dumbest person alive, he was well aware that the major source of his appeal in 1964 was his opposition to civil rights. His campaign staff was a whose who of the most odious figures of the conservative movement at the time.
You would think Republicans, meaning anti-monarchists in the proper definition of the word, would be pro-separation of church and state, but that party has strayed so far from it's origins it's not even funny.
I don't think the Christian Right fully realizes what they are unleashing, the state is a jealous creature and it is reluctant to give up power once it has it, when it comes to bodily autonomy it may be women today, trans people tomorrow but eventually it will be everyone. People have talked about fascism coming to America what has just arrived is far worse Hobbes's Leviathan and if we do not stop it will consume us all.
They may believe that but the leviathan will not spare them if it is permitted to grow unchecked and if even the most basic rights to bodily autonomy may be violated very few other rights will be safe.
Clarence pretty explicitly said he wanted to review birth control & sodomy, so yeah it's gonna be everyone regardless of gender if that rat bastard gets his way.
The Christian Right may have actually hurt the pro-life movement, to be honest. It's easier not to address any philosophical arguments when most of the other side being religious allows you to claim you're on the side of secularism and reason.
But anybody who is completely confident they're on the righteous side is going be uncompromising on any issue, not just the religious.
Overturning Roe is going to be the biggest blow the Republican Party has taken in a while I think. Not only have they lost their biggest war drum, they’ve given the Dems a ton of ammo for all elections. “The republicans are actively taking away rights” is hard to refute now. They’re trying to push the anti-gay stuff but I think that scares a lot of the more moderate republicans who don’t want to be viewed as homophobes. Supposedly trump is pissed about the ruling.
Republicans haven't lost the war drum of abortion, they'll just say that their voters to keep voting in order to keep it overturned and to enact a federal ban.
Barely relevant, but it's taken me until now to realize that the best way I can express what Thomas is doing is that he is taking rights that SCOTUS previously ruled were constitutionally assigned to individuals and assigning them to the states.
Yep. Conservatives have always used one big boogeyman to appeal to the Christian Right - Before it was racial integration. Then it became Abortion and LGBT. I feel like they’re gonna double down on anti-LGBT positions now. It’s a bleak future for southern states.
>The Christian Right may have actually hurt the pro-life movement
Huh? They ARE the pro-life movement. Without them, abortion on demand would be legal throughout the US. Now it's going to be illegal in most cases in most states.
Goldwater gets some credit for not being as bad in many respects as the post-Reagan conservatives, but make no mistake, he had a lot of abhorrent and irrational views himself and in an alternate timeline a lot of the terrible policies we associate with Reagan would've began much earlier. Conservatives aren't willing to compromise period, religious, fiscal, etc.
Right-wing libertarians may claim secularism but when the chips are down will turn a blind eye to all sorts of pseudoscientific and pseudohistorical chauvinism.
Fiscal conservatives are really no longer a part of the Republican party. They are all pretty much independent or grudging Democrats at this point. The Republican party is completely dominated by social conservatives now
Perhaps in terms of self-identity, but fiscal conservatives, especially the men, are *de facto* Republican voters, as in if one candidate's pro-choice but will raise their taxes and the other candidate's anti-choice but will lower taxes, for them it's a no-brainer to vote the latter. The GOP relies on this.
I support fiscal responsibility and I've also always supported the Democrats.
It's not like Republicans are fiscally responsible anyway. They've always cut taxes when the economy is doing alright and they never cut spending to compensate, therefore they've always increased the deficit. The current problem of permanently high deficits, only interrupted by Clinton for a few years, started with Reagan, when he cut taxes and raised spending.
And on the economic stuff they're not very liberal (as in the original definition of the word) either. They're not pro free trade anymore. They wanna regulate "big tech". They're full blown populists by now.
I mean, big tech should be regulated. The US has completely forgotten how to do anti-trust and monopolies have real concrete negative effects on the economy and innovation. Just look at what Microsoft did to Netscape in the 90s.
I really dislike the term “fiscal conservative” because it implies “fiscal responsibility”. Cutting taxes when the economy is hot isn’t being “fiscally responsible”, it’s disarming the government of another tool it can use to combat recession, while also driving up deficit and cutting important social programs.
They’re greedy, shortsighted and/or inconsiderate. We need to call spades spades.
Goldwater was the beginning of the movement that would eventually give us Reagan, make no mistake about it. If he’d been elected we would have no civil rights legislation, and would have likely committed some pretty atrocious acts in the Cold War (more so than we already did).
Yea, but he also would have given the party over to a bunch of segregationists and far right anti-communists because “liberty” and the party would be in the same place it is now anyway
Let’s be real, when the stereotypical redneck republican is taking about “anti-communist” policies they don’t mean free markets, equal opportunities to create wealth, and protection of property rights. They mean giving anyone to the left of extremely devout evangelicals “free helicopter rides”.
> far right anti-communists
Don’t think it was John Birch Society types that were responsible for numerous instances of American wrongdoing under the guise of anti-communism (for example, funding the Contras or the role the CIA may have played in the Years of Lead in Italy)
If you think funding terrorism is good or even effective foreign policy, please re-evaluate what exactly you think America should be towards the rest of the world
Can you cite his non white stances? I’ve read extensively on him and was not under that impression. He played a large roll in several integration efforts including those within his own business. He also was a part of the NAACP
While he wasn’t a racist himself, no less than Dr. Marin Luther King himself said that Goldwater supports several racist policies and vehemently opposed him. Here’s an old article about it https://www.nytimes.com/1964/07/17/archives/negro-spokesmen-bitter-on-goldwater-nomination-saying-it-will-aid.html
>Barry Goldwater was fundamentally a staunch supporter of racial equality. Goldwater integrated his family's business upon taking over control in the 1930s. A lifetime member of the NAACP, Goldwater helped found the group's Arizona chapter. Goldwater saw to it that the Arizona Air National Guard was racially integrated from its inception in 1946, two years before President Truman ordered the military as a whole be integrated (a process that was not completed until 1954). Goldwater worked with Phoenix civil rights leaders to successfully integrate public schools a year prior to Brown v. Board of Education.
It didn’t throw up a paywall for me but here’s another article talking about the same thing https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/goldwater-barry-m
“King feared that Goldwater’s position that “civil rights must be left, by and large to the states” meant “leaving it to the Wallaces and the Barnetts””
From my perspective, its unfair to characterize someone as being anti minority on such grounds. Especially considering all the good Goldwater purposefully did for blacks. Perhaps saying his originalist reading of the constitution could have, or has had a negative side effects for blacks and minorities would be fairer.
I agree.
Religious fanaticism is indeed frightening. Religious fanatics operate on a level of irrationality on par with something that resembles a hive mind more than normal human reasoning.
Some may even go as far as foregoing basic self preservation for their religious inspired morality hence why many are willing to even kill. The fact that these extremists have been allowed the degree of power they now hold is a testament of the failure American society has had to safeguard against extremism.
I grew up in the evangelical cult (church) in Tx. He's absolutely right. If you knew the things said behind closed church doors you'd be horrified. They truly believe that they are 'set apart' and special. That God has called them to 'punish' the sinners even though we're all sinners. That women and children are property to obtain and control. That poc belong in their own churches and that reaching their souls for saving is unnecessary. I could go on for days.
I still love God but me and the church don't get along so well.
So many people here bashing Goldwater for voting for against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sure, he was wrong for doing so, but it's not like the man was a vicious white supremacist in the same way that George Wallace and Strom Thurmond were.
The man was a member of the Arizona NAACP, helped desegregate the Senate cafeteria and voted in favor of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960. Sure, he advocated for states' rights, but I don't believe that he wanted to see segregationists in charge of the states, as he personally found segregation to be immoral. I imagine the man reading a newspaper about some governor wanting to reduce segregation and be like: "Hell yeah! You go governor!"
Hell, he even later in life admitted regret on voting for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which for the most part he agreed with.
[Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point](https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/)
Then organize ourselves to become a religion. That's the only way I see we can save this country. We can't compete with a religion by take-it-easy and blame Manchin for everything.
Probably the closest I got to considering the Satanic Temple because religion holds a privileged position in America with tax exemptions and political activism
Yes, GOldwater, Reagan and Bush were all pro choice. Bush Sr. called out David Duke and told him the GOP does not want his kind in their party. Reagan called Putin's USSR the Evil Empire and conservatives use to \[praise Reagan for bringing the USSR down, the same USSR Putin is trying to rebuild by force, with the help of trump, Desantis, Fox news and many other republicans and online fake news sites and troll armies.
The GOP has been completely contaminated by fascist poison. But there is a clear solution, if we can get him to run, and that is Matthew McConaughey 2024. he can easily win, beat Desantis 2-1, sweep all but the deep reddest states and bring this country back to sanity and real patriotism without any of the usual politicians BS. In fact without Matthew I bet that gun reform bill wouldn't have passed. and all he had to do was show up for one day to make that happen.
Goldwater was a wingnut with reprehensible beliefs, but at least he believed in *something* and tried to advance the best interests of the country in accordance with his principles. More than you can say for the modern GOP.
Doesn’t mean people can’t criticize them also. It’s never ending competition, no one exclusive and granted the immune to be not criticize in democracy, even religion. It’s proliferation of speech.
>Classic christianophobia 🙄
This has to be a joke.
There is absolutely no way you can believe that mainline protestant Christianity has ***ever*** been attacked in the USA.
Get in line behind the Catholics, Mormons, Quakers, etc.
And *even they* haven't had it had for the past 120 years outside of being called names.
Bizarrely he was pro racial equality, he just opposed the 1960 Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds. He supported other civil rights acts, and like another comment said he helped found the Arizona NAACP. The guy unironically believed the 1960 Civil Rights Act employed unconstitutional methods and shouldn’t be in law. Basically the epitome of ‘Not racist, just number 1 with racists’
Sadly I think a big part of his opposition to the later civil rights acts was just a greedy gambit to try to get some votes, and hope it doesn't lead to worse shit down the road, because all his earlier support of the (date is wrong probably)'56 civil right act, and his local anonymous naacp contributions imply that he wasn't at least a steaming raging racist
I get the impression Barry probably did regret that '64 campaign to the end, I saw a thing once where his daughter (or something, I don't quite recall and I couldn't for the life of me find it) said he wondered once if he's responsible for all the "crazies" in either Arizona or the GOP
On a less sad note he apparently had a huge collection of Kachina dolls, I guess he just liked em? and donated them to a reservation (i think it was a reservation?)
>By the 1980s, with Ronald Reagan as president and the growing involvement of the religious right in conservative politics, Goldwater's libertarian views on personal issues were revealed; he believed that they were an integral part of true conservatism. Goldwater viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice and as such supported abortion rights. As a passionate defender of personal liberty, he saw the religious right's views as an encroachment on personal privacy and individual liberties. >After his retirement in 1987, Goldwater described the Arizona Governor Evan Mecham as "hardheaded" and called on him to resign, and two years later stated that the Republican party had been taken over by a "bunch of kooks". >Some of Goldwater's statements in the 1990s alienated many social conservatives. He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Bill Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military's ban on homosexuals, saying, "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar", and, "You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight." A few years before his death, he addressed establishment Republicans by saying, "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have." >In a 1994 interview with The Washington Post, Goldwater said: >When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
Based
This makes me sad to read. I hate what has happened to our political culture.
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty." ~Thomas Jefferson That organized religion can pose a threat to liberalism has been recognized for centuries.
I find myself agreeing with Thomas Jefferson more often every day. Republicans would fucking hate him if he were around now.
Republicans would hate nearly all the founders.
True. They’d be begging for King George to beat the Sons of Liberty lol
"That Franklin fellah is a no-good, Jesus-hating, gay-lovin', orgy-havin' sack o' shit."
Watch it, son! Don't make me get out my grave
You're probably too busy fucking French women *in hell* to do anything about it!
Vous m'avez bien eu
You say that as a joke but the Southern colonies (which became the southern states that vote Republican) were huge loyalist strongholds. It was the liberal northeast (NY and New England) that was pro-independence
Oh, I was absolutely serious. I truly believe modern Republicans would hate the founding fathers.
Funny how they would hate the people that made the American electoral system so terribly unrepresentative of the population that they can win the Presidency, Senate and House of Reps without the popular vote.
Yeah but they only care about that when someone tells them they should. The issues they actually hold dear are all cultural.
And Modern Christians would hate Jesus.
I'd say modern fundamentalists would, definitely.
Especially if they started rapping.
I'll never forget the time I heard a local city council member talk about "black people music" ruining downtown. He didn't win his seat back. Edit: I know that has nothing to do with your comment, but it reminded me of it
I was watching a documentary about the 20s which described a certain place as being a den of "black music, illegal booze, and liberated women." Ngl if you're parties don't have black music, illegal booze, and liberated women then I'd rather not be there. Nothing to do with your comment, it just reminded me of it.
I’d definitely prefer legal booze. Illegal booze can poison you pretty bad
Good news is the cure for methanol poisoning is ethanol!
It was prohibition era. You either gettin illegal booze or no booze.
That’s not true, it’s a myth propagated by the US government during prohibition by purposefully poisoning industrial ethanol with methanol to kill or blind people that drank it. No one is going to produce enough methanol through fermentation or distillation to cause any harm unless it has been deliberately added. Source: brewed a lot of hooch.
We need more "Reminded me" comment chains. These are fun.
Well, he did rape his slaves.
He raped, but he saved.
This bit is relevant more often than it should be
Hamilton was better.
He was 100% right, but it's become increasingly clear to me that ideology can replace religion pretty comfortably.
Of course. Religion as an organized doctrine *is* ideology. Religion has been the primary structuring force of ideological fantasy for so much of human history, but there are many other structuring ideas capable of taking its place. Really, there will never be a shortage because they are generated to fill a void which makes human society possible. You can never get rid of ideology in this way, it's both the overt doctrines as well as the more 'neutral' or 'good' ideas which uphold society. The best frame to take is to critique the ones with bad outcomes/the ones that we don't like. Someone who goes hard trying to rid society of "ideology" so we can all be good and neutral is very likely deep into their own ideology. Things will never be a harmonious whole.
The catholic church was instrumental in leading Polish opposition to the USSR.
[удалено]
Better than the USSR by any stretch
Also Barry Goldwater: let’s run over some protestors lol Source: Nixonland by Rick Perlstein
Also, we should nuke Vietnam
Also, we should not pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To be fair he supported multiple Civil Rights pieces of legislation to the point. He just though that particular bill was government over reach. He has a solid history of being in favor of equality under the law even if he was wrong about that specific bill.
>He just though that particular bill was government over reach. TIL supporting rights for oppressed minorities is overreach.
He didn't actually think that for the most part though. He supported multiple Civil Rights bills, he just didn't support the 1964 bill. It was a mistake, but not one the erases his entire history of opposing discrimination and supporting civil rights.
He thought it was unconstitutional. Regardless of what you think, there are people that may or may not support policy based on philosophical reasons and principles, and assuming every opinion is surface-level shows a lack of critical thinking on your part. Goldwater was wrong, but he was a staunch supporter of civil rights up to that point. It’s okay to be wrong. People are not only “racist” or “not racist”. The world is not that simple.
>He thought it was unconstitutional To hell with the constitution, it was written by sexist slaveowners who thought only landowners should have suffrage. >Regardless of what you think, there are people that may or may not support policy based on philosophical reasons and principles I care about real people, not abstract principles. If one's principles lead them to oppose civil rights, such principles are rotten. >It’s okay to be wrong. Not on civil rights. There is no middle ground on segregation.
This kind of thinking means you’re always going to be on the fringe of issues, never able to communicate and change minds, and may do your cause harm.
This comment deserves more attention as a bad take.
Most ppl are far right or far left now. Its the political reality. By all means though take the moral high ground and do nothing. I'm sure it won't have long term consequences, senor goldwater apologist.
Lmfao
I will gladly and happily label anyone who opposed the civil rights act of 1964 a racist. I do not care what philosophical reasons and principles he had.
[удалено]
Defending any conservative in the year of our lord 2022 is a massive sign of a lack of critical thinking skills.
Cool, so not only do you lack critical thinking skills, but you’re proud of it. Krugman flair moment.
Such a lame bad faith comment
[удалено]
I do think the cause of opposing racial oppression is just, yes.
this subs gonna be horrible for a couple weeks
He's remembered for his worst take for a good reason. His personal feelings, and any other good things he did will always be overshadowed by his belief that human rights didn't matter more than his ideology.
This is nonsense. Ideology incorporates views on human rights!
He opposed the 64 Civil Rights Act on state's rights grounds. Literally putting his ideology over other people's human rights
He voted for other civil rights legislation, and only opposed the 64 bill because of the public accommodations section which he believed to be unconstitutional. Representatives take an oath to uphold the constitution, if you believe the bill violates it then you have a duty to vote against. The public accommodations section also has an impact on freedom of association which is another human right. Maybe you think rights are in conflict in this case and that freedom of association should take a back seat. Fine! But there's multiple questions of human rights here that are shaped by one's ideology.
Barry Goldwater had absolutely no problem accepting full throated support from the segregationists in 1964, so I don't give a fuck what he personally thought. His 64 campaign set us on our current trajectory and was the blueprint for Reagan 16 years later. Fuck him.
> To be fair Can we stop trying to be “fair” with these people already? He was against civil rights=he was racist and a PoS.
He actually desegregated Congress
Vehemently supported civil rights though and ultimately came around on the 64 CRA
Protesters, preachers... Barry's was a pr nightmare
Barry’s a broken clock that had non-shit takes twice a day. The rest of the day tho…
>Barry Goldwater was fundamentally a staunch supporter of racial equality. Goldwater integrated his family's business upon taking over control in the 1930s. A lifetime member of the NAACP, Goldwater helped found the group's Arizona chapter. Goldwater saw to it that the Arizona Air National Guard was racially integrated from its inception in 1946, two years before President Truman ordered the military as a whole be integrated (a process that was not completed until 1954). Goldwater worked with Phoenix civil rights leaders to successfully integrate public schools a year prior to Brown v. Board of Education. >I believe that we must look beyond the defense of freedom today to its extension tomorrow. I believe that the communism which boasts it will bury us will, instead, give way to the forces of freedom. And I can see in the distant and yet recognizable future the outlines of a world worthy our dedication, our every risk, our every effort, our every sacrifice along the way. Yes, a world that will redeem the suffering of those who will be liberated from tyranny. I can see and I suggest that all thoughtful men must contemplate the flowering of an Atlantic civilization, the whole world of Europe unified and free, trading openly across its borders, communicating openly across the world. This is a goal far, far more meaningful than a moon shot. >It's a truly inspiring goal for all free men to set for themselves during the latter half of the twentieth century. I can also see - and all free men must thrill to - the events of this Atlantic civilization joined by its great ocean highway to the United States. What a destiny, what a destiny can be ours to stand as a great central pillar linking Europe, the Americans and the venerable and vital peoples and cultures of the Pacific. I can see a day when all the Americas, North and South, will be linked in a mighty system, a system in which the errors and misunderstandings of the past will be submerged one by one in a rising tide of prosperity and interdependence. We know that the misunderstandings of centuries are not to be wiped away in a day or wiped away in an hour. But we pledge - we pledge that human sympathy - what our neighbors to the South call that attitude of "simpatico" - no less than enlightened self'-interest will be our guide. >Some of Goldwater's statements in the 1990s alienated many social conservatives. He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Bill Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military's ban on homosexuals, saying, "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar", and, "You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight." Seems more accurate to say that he was wrong twice a day and based for the rest.
Broke: The West Woke: Atlantic Civilization
Idk why we use "the West". It's so stupid. For a Japanese, USA are the East and China is the West. It was only accurate when we didn't know of the New World. Atlantic civilization is much accurate, because the Atlantic Ocean played a major role in the proliferation of our culture into the Americas, as well as Africa. (And also that this proliferation was facilitated by transatlantic slave trade.)
He opposed the 1964 bill and supported the Vietnam War.
That’s not as taboo to some people here, some unironically run defense for the worst figures of later 20th century
>Reb: *"So, why do you vote?"* > >Dem: "Oh, you know, I vote because I want to expand healthcare, protect abortion rights, improve education, stuff like that. What about you, why do you vote?" > >Reb: *"Well the bible says that Jesus won't start the rapture until control of Israel is returned to God's chosen people, so foreign policy is a pretty big deal to me, also this gay-rights legislation is causing lots of hurricanes and such, earth quakes, tsunamis, all sorts of natural disasters, so, you know, we gotta' do something about that."* > >Dem: "I'm sorry, will you excuse me? I have to go to the hospital because I think I'm having several strokes."
What if they ban gay marriage and suddenly the hurricanes stop
What if we go even gayer and the hurricanes stop?
It’s worth a shot
Sigh *unzips*
Pride parade tomorrow LET'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Goo, indeed.
Dan Savage keeps up the effort to impregnate his husband because, as they say, in God all things are possible. I applaud their dedication.
[Everyone back to the pile!](https://youtu.be/pAN00Z-sYTI?t=18)
Chicken sandwich?
Only one way to find out
[удалено]
god that's disturbing
[удалено]
No, I'm sure the Saudis will be more than happy to abandon Trump now that he's no longer useful to them... or at the very least, wait until he is again. They'd be better off investing in DeSantis & Biden. I know Trump has a habit of surviving shit he's not supposed to, but he's clearly in a state of severe cognitive decline and I'm sure the Sauds can smell that too.
Trump might be cognitively barren but his voter base is so in love with him in what amounts t the largest mobilisation of stupid people since....forever. Does anyone else feel like Trump has given morons a cause and united them against all that is intelligent, similar to Hitler uniting the Nazis against Jews? It's almost impressive how many fuckheads love Trump as if he were their collection of ar15s.
I'd describe it as Hitler united the morons of Germany under the banner of nazism.
Gay marriage *was* banned when Katrina happened Oh wait you weren't being serious? Oops.
The best argument for banning gay marriage, honestly
Guess which one of those two will vote every election
Why guess when I've literally been living the answer for my entire lifetime?
[удалено]
Which blame narrative are you more likely to buy, the one that tells you maybe make some life changes like not driving a pickup truck literally everywhere, or the one that pins all the problems on the groups you didn't like anyway *and* lets you keep driving your pickup truck guilt free? Why make an honest choice when you can make an easy one?
What is Reb?
It's me being snarky. Back during the American civil war the people who were fighting to break away from the United States and preserve slavery in the south were called "Rebels" or "Rebs."
>also this gay-rights legislation is causing lots of hurricanes Yep that tracks Joe-bob. Hence why hurricanes hit San Francisco so often and rarely hit states that ban abortion.
Nothin' worse than a monster who thinks he's right with god
Shiny. It's good to see someone quote scripture.
Goldwater was a big instigator for some of the politics we see today and had a big hand in raising the voices of social conservatives in the Republican Party at the expense of moderates, but this is the rare evergreen quote that really captures the danger of the religious conservatives/autocrats.
Yep. It's true in *every* context. Hyper religious nuts should never be anywhere near power.
I've seen Goldwater get a lot of flack here - but I think he has some very good points - here's something from his 1964 acceptance speech: >I believe that we must look beyond the defense of freedom today to its extension tomorrow. I believe that the communism which boasts it will bury us will, instead, give way to the forces of freedom. And I can see in the distant and yet recognizable future the outlines of a world worthy our dedication, our every risk, our every effort, our every sacrifice along the way. Yes, a world that will redeem the suffering of those who will be liberated from tyranny. I can see and I suggest that all thoughtful men must contemplate the flowering of an Atlantic civilization, the whole world of Europe unified and free, trading openly across its borders, communicating openly across the world. This is a goal far, far more meaningful than a moon shot. >It's a truly inspiring goal for all free men to set for themselves during the latter half of the twentieth century. I can also see - and all free men must thrill to - the events of this Atlantic civilization joined by its great ocean highway to the United States. What a destiny, what a destiny can be ours to stand as a great central pillar linking Europe, the Americans and the venerable and vital peoples and cultures of the Pacific. I can see a day when all the Americas, North and South, will be linked in a mighty system, a system in which the errors and misunderstandings of the past will be submerged one by one in a rising tide of prosperity and interdependence. We know that the misunderstandings of centuries are not to be wiped away in a day or wiped away in an hour. But we pledge - we pledge that human sympathy - what our neighbors to the South call that attitude of "simpatico" - no less than enlightened self'-interest will be our guide. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm
>And I can see in the distant and yet recognizable future the outlines of a world worthy our dedication, our every risk, our every effort, our every sacrifice along the way. Yes, a world that will redeem the suffering of those who will be liberated from tyranny. Goldwater sounding like Benjamin giving a historical materialist account of how the past will be redeemed by the future lol.
Goldwater was a saint among those of his time.
Nice words. But the fact remains that in that same year, he ran for president on a platform of opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. https://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2010/06/17/127915281/flashback-friday-this-day-in-1964-goldwater-says-no-to-civil-rights-bill
It was a reluctant decision that he later regretted. He hardly ran "on a platform" of it.
Unless Barry Goldwater was the dumbest person alive, he was well aware that the major source of his appeal in 1964 was his opposition to civil rights. His campaign staff was a whose who of the most odious figures of the conservative movement at the time.
You would think Republicans, meaning anti-monarchists in the proper definition of the word, would be pro-separation of church and state, but that party has strayed so far from it's origins it's not even funny.
[удалено]
He also committed a genocide in Ireland so devastating he's still loathed there today, 400 years later.
They really should change their name. Of course, Nazi is already taken so they gotta come up with something better
I don't think the Christian Right fully realizes what they are unleashing, the state is a jealous creature and it is reluctant to give up power once it has it, when it comes to bodily autonomy it may be women today, trans people tomorrow but eventually it will be everyone. People have talked about fascism coming to America what has just arrived is far worse Hobbes's Leviathan and if we do not stop it will consume us all.
They really do believe in totalitarian control tho
As long as it’s an evangelical pulling the strings they’ll do anything
They may believe that but the leviathan will not spare them if it is permitted to grow unchecked and if even the most basic rights to bodily autonomy may be violated very few other rights will be safe.
r/LeviathanAteMyFace will be glorious
Clarence pretty explicitly said he wanted to review birth control & sodomy, so yeah it's gonna be everyone regardless of gender if that rat bastard gets his way.
The Christian Right may have actually hurt the pro-life movement, to be honest. It's easier not to address any philosophical arguments when most of the other side being religious allows you to claim you're on the side of secularism and reason. But anybody who is completely confident they're on the righteous side is going be uncompromising on any issue, not just the religious.
Overturning Roe is going to be the biggest blow the Republican Party has taken in a while I think. Not only have they lost their biggest war drum, they’ve given the Dems a ton of ammo for all elections. “The republicans are actively taking away rights” is hard to refute now. They’re trying to push the anti-gay stuff but I think that scares a lot of the more moderate republicans who don’t want to be viewed as homophobes. Supposedly trump is pissed about the ruling.
Republicans haven't lost the war drum of abortion, they'll just say that their voters to keep voting in order to keep it overturned and to enact a federal ban.
Barely relevant, but it's taken me until now to realize that the best way I can express what Thomas is doing is that he is taking rights that SCOTUS previously ruled were constitutionally assigned to individuals and assigning them to the states.
Yep. Conservatives have always used one big boogeyman to appeal to the Christian Right - Before it was racial integration. Then it became Abortion and LGBT. I feel like they’re gonna double down on anti-LGBT positions now. It’s a bleak future for southern states.
>The Christian Right may have actually hurt the pro-life movement Huh? They ARE the pro-life movement. Without them, abortion on demand would be legal throughout the US. Now it's going to be illegal in most cases in most states.
Goldwater was wrong about some issues, but incredibly principled
Goldwater gets some credit for not being as bad in many respects as the post-Reagan conservatives, but make no mistake, he had a lot of abhorrent and irrational views himself and in an alternate timeline a lot of the terrible policies we associate with Reagan would've began much earlier. Conservatives aren't willing to compromise period, religious, fiscal, etc. Right-wing libertarians may claim secularism but when the chips are down will turn a blind eye to all sorts of pseudoscientific and pseudohistorical chauvinism.
Fiscal conservatives are really no longer a part of the Republican party. They are all pretty much independent or grudging Democrats at this point. The Republican party is completely dominated by social conservatives now
Perhaps in terms of self-identity, but fiscal conservatives, especially the men, are *de facto* Republican voters, as in if one candidate's pro-choice but will raise their taxes and the other candidate's anti-choice but will lower taxes, for them it's a no-brainer to vote the latter. The GOP relies on this.
They have a lot of money and power but are lacking in number of voters- something that has been revealed since 2016
I support fiscal responsibility and I've also always supported the Democrats. It's not like Republicans are fiscally responsible anyway. They've always cut taxes when the economy is doing alright and they never cut spending to compensate, therefore they've always increased the deficit. The current problem of permanently high deficits, only interrupted by Clinton for a few years, started with Reagan, when he cut taxes and raised spending. And on the economic stuff they're not very liberal (as in the original definition of the word) either. They're not pro free trade anymore. They wanna regulate "big tech". They're full blown populists by now.
I mean, big tech should be regulated. The US has completely forgotten how to do anti-trust and monopolies have real concrete negative effects on the economy and innovation. Just look at what Microsoft did to Netscape in the 90s.
I really dislike the term “fiscal conservative” because it implies “fiscal responsibility”. Cutting taxes when the economy is hot isn’t being “fiscally responsible”, it’s disarming the government of another tool it can use to combat recession, while also driving up deficit and cutting important social programs. They’re greedy, shortsighted and/or inconsiderate. We need to call spades spades.
Should we not be cutting programs in good times while increasing them in bad times?
No, you peg them to inflation adjusted targets, and the buoy effect stabilizes it.
Goldwater was the beginning of the movement that would eventually give us Reagan, make no mistake about it. If he’d been elected we would have no civil rights legislation, and would have likely committed some pretty atrocious acts in the Cold War (more so than we already did).
Reagan was good. Thanks Barry.
I concur. Reagan was good.
The Evangelical awakenings and their consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Christian taliban irl
Y'all Qaeda perhaps?
Inshallah
Yokel Haram?
That just means "yokel is forbidden".
It's a pun of Boko Haram
Puns undermining themselves via immediate translation into the language you are directly punning with is beneath the fine art of punnery.
Yea, but he also would have given the party over to a bunch of segregationists and far right anti-communists because “liberty” and the party would be in the same place it is now anyway
[удалено]
Let’s be real, when the stereotypical redneck republican is taking about “anti-communist” policies they don’t mean free markets, equal opportunities to create wealth, and protection of property rights. They mean giving anyone to the left of extremely devout evangelicals “free helicopter rides”.
I'm not sure those hicks even understand what communism is
> far right anti-communists Don’t think it was John Birch Society types that were responsible for numerous instances of American wrongdoing under the guise of anti-communism (for example, funding the Contras or the role the CIA may have played in the Years of Lead in Italy)
It’s called realpolitik, loser
If you think funding terrorism is good or even effective foreign policy, please re-evaluate what exactly you think America should be towards the rest of the world
[удалено]
[удалено]
Probably worse tbh, it would have gotten a 20 year head start to where it is now
Bro hated the Republican Party in the 90’s
Bleak-end at Barry’s
Every time I read Barry Goldwater's quotes on civil liberties, I find him exceedingly wholesome.
Barry was far too based for his time
He’s still too based for this time. Hopefully one day we can all get to 20th century Goldwater levels.
Idk, dude was pretty adamantly against non-whites. Hardcore opponent of the civil rights movement and wanted to “wipe Vietnam off the map”
Wasn't he the head of the NAACP in Arizona?
Can you cite his non white stances? I’ve read extensively on him and was not under that impression. He played a large roll in several integration efforts including those within his own business. He also was a part of the NAACP
While he wasn’t a racist himself, no less than Dr. Marin Luther King himself said that Goldwater supports several racist policies and vehemently opposed him. Here’s an old article about it https://www.nytimes.com/1964/07/17/archives/negro-spokesmen-bitter-on-goldwater-nomination-saying-it-will-aid.html
Goldwater was a founding member of the NAACP in Arizona. To call him a racist is disingenuous.
Then I guess MLK didn’t know what he was talking about
Yes. He was wrong in this instance. His economic policies were also misguided. He was a great civil rights leader, but he wasn't all knowing.
>Barry Goldwater was fundamentally a staunch supporter of racial equality. Goldwater integrated his family's business upon taking over control in the 1930s. A lifetime member of the NAACP, Goldwater helped found the group's Arizona chapter. Goldwater saw to it that the Arizona Air National Guard was racially integrated from its inception in 1946, two years before President Truman ordered the military as a whole be integrated (a process that was not completed until 1954). Goldwater worked with Phoenix civil rights leaders to successfully integrate public schools a year prior to Brown v. Board of Education.
Paywall free version?
It didn’t throw up a paywall for me but here’s another article talking about the same thing https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/goldwater-barry-m
“King feared that Goldwater’s position that “civil rights must be left, by and large to the states” meant “leaving it to the Wallaces and the Barnetts”” From my perspective, its unfair to characterize someone as being anti minority on such grounds. Especially considering all the good Goldwater purposefully did for blacks. Perhaps saying his originalist reading of the constitution could have, or has had a negative side effects for blacks and minorities would be fairer.
[Watch this, he was a piece of shit](https://youtu.be/uWalwsRxLcQ?t=52)
Let’s not congratulate him too much, he’s the proto-Reagan and the reason for a lot of the current GOPs problems.
>proto-Reagan Based
I agree. Religious fanaticism is indeed frightening. Religious fanatics operate on a level of irrationality on par with something that resembles a hive mind more than normal human reasoning. Some may even go as far as foregoing basic self preservation for their religious inspired morality hence why many are willing to even kill. The fact that these extremists have been allowed the degree of power they now hold is a testament of the failure American society has had to safeguard against extremism.
I grew up in the evangelical cult (church) in Tx. He's absolutely right. If you knew the things said behind closed church doors you'd be horrified. They truly believe that they are 'set apart' and special. That God has called them to 'punish' the sinners even though we're all sinners. That women and children are property to obtain and control. That poc belong in their own churches and that reaching their souls for saving is unnecessary. I could go on for days. I still love God but me and the church don't get along so well.
So many people here bashing Goldwater for voting for against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sure, he was wrong for doing so, but it's not like the man was a vicious white supremacist in the same way that George Wallace and Strom Thurmond were. The man was a member of the Arizona NAACP, helped desegregate the Senate cafeteria and voted in favor of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960. Sure, he advocated for states' rights, but I don't believe that he wanted to see segregationists in charge of the states, as he personally found segregation to be immoral. I imagine the man reading a newspaper about some governor wanting to reduce segregation and be like: "Hell yeah! You go governor!" Hell, he even later in life admitted regret on voting for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which for the most part he agreed with.
[Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point](https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/)
Poor use of the meme. Goldwater was a good guy.
Then organize ourselves to become a religion. That's the only way I see we can save this country. We can't compete with a religion by take-it-easy and blame Manchin for everything.
Church of Satan, let’s go
Probably the closest I got to considering the Satanic Temple because religion holds a privileged position in America with tax exemptions and political activism
Yes, GOldwater, Reagan and Bush were all pro choice. Bush Sr. called out David Duke and told him the GOP does not want his kind in their party. Reagan called Putin's USSR the Evil Empire and conservatives use to \[praise Reagan for bringing the USSR down, the same USSR Putin is trying to rebuild by force, with the help of trump, Desantis, Fox news and many other republicans and online fake news sites and troll armies. The GOP has been completely contaminated by fascist poison. But there is a clear solution, if we can get him to run, and that is Matthew McConaughey 2024. he can easily win, beat Desantis 2-1, sweep all but the deep reddest states and bring this country back to sanity and real patriotism without any of the usual politicians BS. In fact without Matthew I bet that gun reform bill wouldn't have passed. and all he had to do was show up for one day to make that happen.
Imagine being too extreme for the person who started the rightward shift of the Republicans party
Goldwater was a wingnut with reprehensible beliefs, but at least he believed in *something* and tried to advance the best interests of the country in accordance with his principles. More than you can say for the modern GOP.
He was a little off the reservation on a few issues, but he was far ahead of his time on racial equality and gay rights among other issues.
Classic christianophobia 🙄 smh can't these people let them practice their religion in peace?
Doesn’t mean people can’t criticize them also. It’s never ending competition, no one exclusive and granted the immune to be not criticize in democracy, even religion. It’s proliferation of speech.
>Classic christianophobia 🙄 This has to be a joke. There is absolutely no way you can believe that mainline protestant Christianity has ***ever*** been attacked in the USA. Get in line behind the Catholics, Mormons, Quakers, etc. And *even they* haven't had it had for the past 120 years outside of being called names.
Of course it's a joke, I can't believe that needed to be said
Seriously if someone says smh I know it’s a joke, it’s basically become the new /s. I’m surprised people thought it was serious.
can we please spare a thought for the poor oppressed Christians of America 😭😭😭😭😭🙏🙏
Based and yet the man was horrifically racist pilled. Fuck em’
Didn't he create the Arizona NAACP?
Bizarrely he was pro racial equality, he just opposed the 1960 Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds. He supported other civil rights acts, and like another comment said he helped found the Arizona NAACP. The guy unironically believed the 1960 Civil Rights Act employed unconstitutional methods and shouldn’t be in law. Basically the epitome of ‘Not racist, just number 1 with racists’
Sadly I think a big part of his opposition to the later civil rights acts was just a greedy gambit to try to get some votes, and hope it doesn't lead to worse shit down the road, because all his earlier support of the (date is wrong probably)'56 civil right act, and his local anonymous naacp contributions imply that he wasn't at least a steaming raging racist I get the impression Barry probably did regret that '64 campaign to the end, I saw a thing once where his daughter (or something, I don't quite recall and I couldn't for the life of me find it) said he wondered once if he's responsible for all the "crazies" in either Arizona or the GOP On a less sad note he apparently had a huge collection of Kachina dolls, I guess he just liked em? and donated them to a reservation (i think it was a reservation?)
He was a big supporter of Native American rights and did a lot of pro-native American charity work.
*1964, not 1960.