Discriminations

nuance has come to mean what liberals like, whatever it is.

when it comes to things liberals don't like they don't go for nuances. They condemn those things without regard to any delicate nuances. Same for things liberals like. When it comes to racism against black people, there are no nuances. It is wrong (a position I agree with). But when it comes to muslims saying they hate jews or discrimination against asians or whites in school acceptance, suddenly liberals find a lot of nuances. Those things are not so bad, somehow.
no nuances about abortion. liberals like it. abortion must be legal under all circumstances and conditions.
re what quinn said about multiculturalism, the reason she can listen to the "debate" and the reason she had a career and the reason she can insult the president is because western culture is the rule where she lives. it prevails. if another culture prevailed, she would not be able to do those things. Maybe she would not be able to leave the house without the permission of her husband. Liberals think that the conditions we live under just fall from the sky (to the extent that they like those conditions or admit there is anything good here. usually they say it is all bad and that they are eager to blame on the american people). Truth is, people created it, western people, white people, if western is a euphemism. But it's not, because russians are not like that. The multi world that obama wants will not be a liberal world because only the west, the dwindling west, cares about liberalism. And that is the scariest thing.

Nuance?
THAT'S what it's called.
I always called it pompous weasel words of deliberate obfuscation.

I guess nuance makes a nice shortcut, but Penn & Teller use a better one I think.

Dear Sir,

I am a bit confused by this post. Ms. Quinn is clearly expressing her support for McCain in no uncertain terms. I don't understand what you meant to say.

Regards,
Roy

Nuance? Clarity? Certitude?

Hmmm....

Let's look at one example from Saddleback Church:

>>>"Warren asked Obama: "Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it, or do we defeat it?"

Obama's response: "Evil does exist. I mean, we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil in parents have viciously abused their children and I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world...Now, the one thing that I think is very important for us is to have humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, but, you know, a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil...And I think one thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that, you know, just because we think our intentions are good doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good..."

One hour later, Warren asked McCain the same question about evil and what we should do about it. McCain's response began this way:

"Defeat it."

http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/obama_mccain_and_rick_warren.php

Without comparing the two responses to each OTHER, let's hear what the "Founder" of Christianity had to say about the subject of evil:

Matthew Chapter 5

>>>"38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

--Jesus Christ
Sermon on the Mount

Now, as far as "clarity" goes, Jesus is pretty clear, wouldn't you say? J

Obama's nuance on this question of evil, demonstrated to me that he at least has an understanding of the conflict between what Jesus commands Christians to do and the responsibilities that come with being President of the United States.

Obama has cited nuance on complex faith issues before. This is from the Call to Renewal speech:

>>>"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

That's why I agree somewhat with Sally Quinn.

Americans need to GROW UP.

Americans need to READ.

Americans need to THINK.

The monumental challenges that face our nation can't be solved with school-yard sloganeering, and bumper sticker catch-phrases.

The unfortunate nature of politics today IMHO, is that the attention span and comprehension level of the average citizen has shriveled to the point of infantility.

We can't afford another President whose greatest attribute was "being a guy I'd like to have a beer with."

--Cobra

Cobra, do you think that Jesus, in his turn-the-cheek statement, meant that, for example, if you saw a man choking a toddler to death, you should not resist that?

Laura writes:

>>>"Cobra, do you think that Jesus, in his turn-the-cheek statement, meant that, for example, if you saw a man choking a toddler to death, you should not resist that?"

I don't presume to speak for Jesus. I hope my quoting of scripture doesn't give anybody that impression.

The only records I think of Jesus ever getting physical was when He threw the money changers out of the temple.

My gut instinct as a failed, imperfect human being to your "man-choking-toddler-scenario" would be to tackle the sucker, slap him in a hammer-lock, and yell for somebody to call the police.

Would that be a popular decision in the secular world? Certainly. Would that decision be absolutely inline with the teachings of Jesus? Much murkier. We know from Luke 17:2 what Jesus thought about people who hurt children:

>>>"It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

Hence the nuance: The literal teachings of Jesus applied to secular society...which is exactly what Obama was talking about at length. It's a deep philosophical discussion.

--Cobra