||"dawnbreak in the west"|
Saturday, December 03, 2016
Conservatives just can't quit 'em
In much the same way Southern Partisans can't get off the topic of Rosa Parks' stagecraft, Evangelicals can't get off Clarence Darrow's. Yesterday it was Warden at Ace's HQ, the boss being out this weekend.
Liberal civil-rights activists point out that whether or not Rosa Parks was a Left agent doesn't matter; the law was discriminatory, and someone was going to challenge it, which conservatives weren't doing - I mean, despite muttering Dems Are Teh Real Racist and all. Arguments against Rosa Parks can be found, but they're not coming from the "non-racist" wing of Dixie apologetic.
Likewise, I will repeat what le haubeau said in the comments: it doesn't matter if Darrow wasn't teaching in the right field, if Darrow had been set up by Leftists, if Darrow was personally biased against Christianity. It wouldn't even matter to whatever extent his muse Charles Darwin himself was incomplete. The law Darrow was challenging in the state of Tennessee was metaphysically wrong. Monophysitically, specifically: from the State is denied the moral right to enforce falsehood.
Conservatives don't like it when Liberals beat them on the merits. The answer should be to get better arguments, and to beat the liberals - as the segregationists propose against Rosa Parks (whether or not they are evil to propose it). But it's so much easier to quibble, like an autistic wanker, whether Rosa Parks had "standing"; ditto, whether Darrow did.
I'm here to say that this is the lazy way out, and to advise to knock it off.
On this site
Property of author; All Rights Reserved