These kinds of arguments scare me for what they imply more than what they
actually say. Heston seems to want to strike up a chord with certain hate
groups without actually saying he agrees with them. He references specific
subjects and code-words, but doesn't actually repeat the full litany. As
such, he and his supporters take the high ground. He can truthfully claim
that he didn't say anything bad about a specific group. He just referenced
them without really saying anything specific.
This is the exact kind of speech that is posted all over and quoted by
white-supremacists, homophobes, anti-Semites, etc. They all "know" what he
is talking about, but it is hard to prove that he said anything. It is the
exact vague speech that Clinton uses to describe his sexual activities, or
that drug dealers and prostitutes use to negotiate a deal. They know they
can't say what they mean, so they talk around an issue. If they get caught,
they will insist that they didn't really say anything.
When he says his Creator gave him a gift which might be used in the
political process, he implies that God will guide him to run for president
and guide his decisions while he is president.
When he says we are fighting a great civil war and cultural war that is
trying to hijack our birthright, he is implying that he wants to turn back
history to earlier political times and have rights based on birth.
When he says that he that our problems are bigger than the gun issue, he
implies that the gun issue is at its core.
When he says that white pride is not racist, he implies that he is
supporting white pride groups without mentioning any support for other
races.
When he says that gay rights should extend no further than "my" rights or
"your" rights, he implies that gays are fighting for unfair rights not equal
rights. He also implies that gays are not part of "us/me/you" but some
other group.
When he spoke against the Axis Powers in World War II, and draws a parallel
between the holocaust and what is currently happening to gun owners, he
implies the holocaust was less than it was or that gun control equals Nazi
atrocities.
When he gives an example of dental patients who got AIDS from dentists who
didn't disclose it, he implies that AIDS patients must be publicly disclosed
and kept away from the general public.
When he points out that Dr. King said "negroes" but its not allowed now, he
implies that we should be allowed classify people into another race by the
color of their skin.
When he claims to be a Native American because he was blood-initiated into a
tribe, he implies that we should discount any racism that native Americans
see because he is one and doesn't see any discrimination.
When he says one can talk about race without being a racist, he implies that
he wants to talk about race and make decisions based on race.
When he says that one can see distinctions between genders without being
sexist, it implies that he wants to observe differences between genders and
probably make decisions based on gender.
When he says you can think critically about a denomination without being
anti-religion, it implies that he wants to criticize specific religions for
their beliefs without criticizing others.
When he says you can accept but not celebrate homosexuality without being a
homophobe, he implies that we can accept that it exists but we don't have to
like it or even cooperate with it.
When he says disobedience is in our DNA and follows the awesome power of
Gandhi, Thoreau, and Jesus, he implies a racial rights and manifest destiny
for certain groups.
When he argues for the right to discuss race, guns, religion and
conservatism, but then argues against the right to discuss liberalism on
campus, anti-authority in entertainment, or political correctness in
entertainment, he implies that free-speech is more for some ideas than
others.
Heston seems to be gathering support for some political agenda to address
"negroes", "homosexuals", "feminists", "anti-authority musicians",
"politically correct entertainers", "liberal teachers", "AIDS-infected
people", etc. He wants to recognize differences based on race, gender,
orientation, religion and political beliefs. The fact that he doesn't
specify what he wants to do with these groups or how they should be treated
differently does not diminish the fact that he seems to be singling out
specific groups for different treatment in some unspecified way.
Even though I can't prove that his plans for these groups are bad, the very
fact that he is publicly compiling a list of groups ominous. He is drawing
the lines between "us" versus "them". We can only guess what the next step
will be.
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:14 MDT