Replies

I have a feeling that not many kids in government school will hear this part of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech.

Of course you can't. The King family will not allow any use of this speech (or any other MLK speech) unless you pay big bucks. That is why it has been used in corporate commercials but is not available for "public" use. The funny thing is that in a generation, even black children will say "Martin Luther King who?" because they will have never heard his speeches...

I agree with the thrust. But as this generation ages and the new "indoctrinated" one takes over and becomes more numerous, the finer points about "inalienable rights" versus the gift of "civil rights" will be lost. Already to a large number of people, housing is a "right", "affordable health care" is a right[heard whenever any spending program is proposed that is against the left's agenda].
Sadly, the chilrun know no better, do not have the tools with which to educate themselves to know better, and we who try to teach them are called "bigots" or told that the world has changed and our way of thinking isn't right anymore. Just try teaching that the individual is more important than the group and watch the little socialists howl.
We have lost folks.
This game is about over.
In the next generation, you will see the ascendency of the UN, the acceptance of the idea that wealth is distributed and not earned by individuals but exists for the benefit of all and that the heroes who made this country were evil vicious oppressors of women and minorities and should be forgotten and cursed.
Its happening now of course, but there are plenty of us to cry "Foul!". But we will be eventually overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the dumbed down.

"Since the 1960s, many laws have been passed to guarantee civil rights to all Americans. But the struggle continues. Today, not only blacks, but many other groups – including women, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, people with disabilities, homosexuals, the homeless and other minorities – are waging civil-rights campaigns."

The author objects to the wording of this letter. But, if you think about it, it's quite accurate. The groups mentioned here ARE waging civil-rights campaigns. They are waging campaigns to have certain rights that they want recognized as "civil rights". So the statement is accurate. Whether those campaigns should succeed is another question.

What I meant to finish in my last post before I hit "Post" too quickly was that here's an example where rhetoric is being used to deceive. By calling a right a "civil right", you create the presumption that the right should be granted and that those who oppose it are bigots. It cuts off the debate of whether the right under discussion should be considered a "civil right" to begin with.