Basically there is a variety of views, not everyone thinks the same but we all have to share the same space. Just knowing that others think differently is the point of this thread and just knowing that others think differently can change our own perceptions of how we engage others.
Soon after I became a member of One Million Moms, I received a “call to action” by email that implored me to threaten the management of JCPenney with a boycott unless they fired Ellen DeGeneres as their spokesperson. It seems that Ms. DeGeneres has an agenda “that goes against Biblical values.” So I sent an email to JCPenney telling them how impressed I was with their Ellen DeGeneres commercials.
Another call to action was over a single episode of the TV show Person of Interest. According to One Million Moms, the show “went way too far in an attempt to normalize homosexuality when creator and producer J.J. Abrams introduced a married lesbian couple”—a female heart surgeon and her female partner. Million Moms said “The show treated this immoral relationship just like any other married couple. This is a way of promoting the homosexual agenda by making it appear absolutely normal.”
One Million Moms: Intolerance of Biblical Proportions
One Million Moms For Gun Control
I read elsewhere but could not find it, that the One Million Moms for Gun Control plan to march on Washington.
If we must score the two and compare it would seem the One Million Moms against homosexuality are better organized, but maybe they need to be better organized since they feel more threatened? Maybe they are better organized simply because their issue is an older one and had more time to develop?
Then we have to ask ourselves how if anything, how are these issues tied together? Some will see that most likely the moms for gun control are also for equal rights while the other moms against equal rights for homosexuals are for gun rights.
Others will claim that is not the case, and how they are the exception, or they know others who are exception, but as a general rule many of these issues are clustered together and that is nothing new. In American history.
One of the biggest issues in the past was Prohibition. Those who were for Prohibition or against it also carried a catalog of other issues that were more or less uniform. From the standpoint we have now and are able to look back it is interesting to see which issues triumphed and which did not. In the end some get a little of what they want but not all of it. We have to share. The future will show us how we did and future generations will score which issues won out and which did not. In either case resolution will arrive and new issues will develop.
"It largely had to do with a xenophobic, largely anti-immigration feeling that arose in the American Middle West, that arose among white, native-born Protestants. It also had a strong racist element to it. Prohibition was a tool that the white South could use to keep down the black population. In fact, they used Prohibition to keep liquor away from black people but not from white people. So you could find a number of ways that people could come into whatever issue they wanted to use and use Prohibition as their tool. The clearest one, probably, was women's suffrage. Oddly, the suffrage movement and the Prohibition movement were almost one and the same — and you found organizations like the Ku Klux Klan supporting women's suffrage because they believed women would vote on behalf of Prohibition."
On how animosity toward German beer brewers led to the ratification of the Prohibition amendment
"This was the final thing that enabled the ratification of the Prohibition amendment. You needed 36 states to approve it, and this was happening just as the U.S. was entering World War I. And the great enemy was Germany — and the brewers were seen by the Prohibitionists as tools of the Kaiser. [Or] if they weren't actually seen as them [by the Prohibitionists], they were used for that purpose to make their political point. So you have a rising tide of strong anti-German feelings sweeping across the country, [and] the brewers got swept away with it."
On the connection between the suffrage movement and the temperance movement
"It largely had to do with the fact that in the 19th century, women had no political rights or property rights. So as the saloon culture began to grow up and we would see men going off to the saloon and getting drunk ... Susan B. Anthony, in the late 1840s, makes her first attempt to make a speech in public life at a temperance convention. This was before she connected with the suffragist movement. She rose to speak at a meeting of the Sons of Temperance in New York, and they said, 'You can't speak. You don't have the rights. Women aren't allowed to speak here.' And that's what pushed her into the suffragist movement. So in fact, you could say that the birth of the suffragist movement comes with the wish to get rid of alcohol."
On the people who advocated for Prohibition but drank anyway
"The wet-drys were people who had no problem perceiving themselves as moral in a public arena and less so in the private arena — or maybe they didn't see it as a moral issue at all. So you had many, many scores of [representatives] and senators who very openly appreciated their alcohol and continued to drink their alcohol but voted against [alcohol consumption]. [Wayne Bidwell] Wheeler of the Anti-Saloon League said, 'I don't care how a man drinks; I care how he votes and how he prays.' That was the way that he kind of put the shine on people who may have been not so appealing. Warren Harding was a great example of it. Warren Harding loved his scotch and soda. He owned stock in a brewery. He also valued his political survival and he made a deal with the Anti-Saloon League that he would vote to support their cause if they would vote to support him when he ran for office. That's how he got elected to the Senate."'
"The first was that [alcohol] enabled the farmer to preserve his fruit ... which is to say, to take the fruit crop and preserve it over the winter, which literally meant take the apple. Turn it into hard cider. And the hard cider into apple jack, which was legal in the farm districts across the country. Interestingly, the farm districts were the ones that most supported Prohibition.
"The second one was medicinal liquor. I have a bottle on my shelf at home — an empty bottle — that says Jim Beam, for medicinal purposes only. In 1917, the American Medical Association — supporting Prohibition — said there was no reason at all to use alcohol as a therapeutic remedy of any kind. Then they realized with this loophole that there was an opportunity to make some money. And capitalism abhors a vacuum. Within two or three years, you could go into virtually any city in the country and buy a prescription for $3 from your local physician and then take it to your local pharmacy and go home with a pint of liquor every 10 days. And this is really how many of the large distilleries in Kentucky and the middle of the country stayed in business throughout the Prohibition years.
"The third loophole is sacramental wine. Among the groups who opposed Prohibition were the Catholics and the Jews — very avidly — and not necessarily for religious reasons; I think more for cultural reasons. ... Tangentially to that, there was the reality that wine is used in the Catholic sacrament for Communion. ... The Jews needed their sacramental wine for the Sabbath service and other services. They were entitled — under the rules — for 10 gallons per adult per year. ... There was no official way to determine who was a rabbi. So people who claimed to be rabbis would get a license to distribute to congregations that didn't even exist. On the other side of that, one congregation in Los Angeles went from 180 families to 1,000 families within the very first 12 months of Prohibition. You joined a congregation; you got your wine from your rabbi."
Prohibition Life: Politics, Loopholes And Bathtub Gin