Home › Opinion › Opinion
Moraga: Everybody, let's play nice
Keeping hate talk out of immigration debate
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionApparently, this hotly contested presidential election has become even more heated with candidates, television and radio executives and media personalities called into the school principal's office and told to play nice.
At least that was the feeling when the National Council of La Raza launched its "Wave of Hope Campaign" last week.
"The immigration issue deserves serious debate and serious solutions," said Janet Murguía, the council's president and chief executive officer. "We cannot have that debate as long as hate has the floor."
She challenged cable television news executives who allow spokesmen, from what she said were hate and vigilante groups, to go on the air 110 times over the last three years, including Dan Stein of the Federation for American Immigration Reform and Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox of the Minuteman Project. The number of appearances were documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League.
She pointed to CNN's Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck and MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan for "parroting" hate speech and portraying the immigration debate in a way that demonizes the entire Hispanic community.
Murguía said television personalities and guests have used code words to label immigrants and Latinos as a threat to the American way of life, including "an army of invaders," "invading force," "a massive horde" or "swarm" and accusing immigrants of "bringing crime and disease" to America.
Murguía also singled out presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, asking him to renounce his endorsement by Gilchrist.
"There's a bully in the room and each of these candidates has a choice," Murguía said. "They can stand up to the bully or they can cater to him. It is a question of courage or cowardice. To date, we have seen far too little courage."
Murguía links the heated immigration debate to a 23 percent rise in violence against Latinos, according to FBI statistics.
"To the Latino community, the surge in hate speech and violence is appalling. But, it should be appalling to everyone," she said.
Murguía challenged the Latino community to add pressure to tone down the hate talk.
"Latinos buy products from the advertisers supporting these programs," she said. "Latinos vote in primaries and in the general election. We have a significant role to play picking winners and losers in both arenas. We need to make it clear to those who embrace hate that they do so at their own economic and political peril."
To counter hate, Murguía said the council is launching its campaign to educate all Americans about the use of hate speech and the rise of violence against Latinos. Information can be found at http://www.wecanstopthehate.org.
In this democracy, you have to have a diversity of viewpoints and the freedom to express those viewpoints. No one should put a muzzle on commentators whether they lean toward the right, the left or try to stay down the middle.
However, with the freedom to express those viewpoints comes the responsibility to act in a civil manner, move the debate along constructively and avoid inciting acts of hate against any particular individual or group.
There is a fine line between free speech and hate speech and programs like the "Wave of Hope Campaign" might be one way to illustrate how that line has been crossed and what can be done to have a passionate, yet civil debate.
Besides the media, the public must also act in a responsible manner. As can be seen in The Star's community-comment section at the end of any story or column about immigration, the subject elicits passionate debate and many well-thought-out opinions on every side of the issue.
However, the anonymous nature of the Internet also elicits its share of hate talk on the community-comment section, and especially in individual e-mails sent to reporters and commentators.
We must all guard against turning the immigration debate from a reasoned and respectful discussion to an all-out hate rant.
The solutions to this controversial issue will not come from those with narrow and hate-filled viewpoints on either side, but by meaningful discussion by all involved in this issue.
— Frank Moraga is The Star's director of diversity and editor of Mi Estrella, The Star's bilingual weekly newspaper. He can be reached at fmoraga@VenturaCountyStar.com.
Posted by keepermel on February 8, 2008 at 5:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The solutions to this controversial issue will not come from those with narrow and hate-filled viewpoints on either side, but by meaningful discussion by all involved in this issue." That is very true....but that does mean that the people who call anyone that is against illegal imaigration racists are fanning the flames of hate. That is not a word to be thrown around lightly, and it is one way to really make people mad. To be against someone breaking the law does not mean you hate the race that they come from. YES, we have a big problem that needs to be fixed. But because you want to hold people accountable for illegal acts does not make you a racist. There are racists in this world and they tend to come out of the woodwork on this issue, ON BOTH SIDES!
Posted by shaver_one on February 8, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is interesting that the author used the term 'code words', just the same as the Obama campaign did. These 'code words' seem to be known only by those who complain about their use. It seems that if you criticize their views, you're using 'code words' that mask racism. And, they use 'racism' frequently. Is there any more of a hateful stance than accusing someone of racism, when they are just expressing their views?
And, again, I stress that being against illegal immigration is not being against immigration, as a whole. Those of us who prefer our borders secure (both northern and southern borders) are not against legal immigration. We are against illegal immigration. There IS a difference. I have spoken to many native-born and naturalized Americans of Hispanic origin. They tell me that they, too, are against illigal immigration.
It is true that a real and frank disussion must take place regarding immigration. But, the proponents of illegal immigration need to get their terms straight. They need to recognize the difference between legal and illegal, and admit there is a major problem.
Posted by sslocal on February 8, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The link the author provides basically states that they want amnesty. This is no solution as it does not address the open border to our south. Shaver is right when he says that both are not secured. But the border to the north has far, far fewer people being smuggled in.
Posted by tanknows on February 8, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Unfortunately addressing illegal immigration in a civil manner will be extremely difficult much in part because of La Raza. La Raza pulls the race card whenever they feel like it. Especially when it means things look like there not going in their direction. Note the raid down in LA yesterday. Over 100 illegal aliens detained. Police records, identity fraud all found prevalent. Can you guess what La Raza will have to say today? LA County alone spends 1 Billion (with a B) on illegal benefits each year and that doesn't include education. So by just fixing and cleaning up just one county in this state, almost 10 percent of the states 14 Billion dollar deficit would be gone. One thing La Raza can't do is run from the numbers. Especially the rise in crime numbers. I don't recall ever seeing so much violence in the El Rio and Oxnard areas of the County. Things are getting bad...La Raza and Moraga need to just face it. Bottom line. They're illegals...period
Posted by bombero42 on February 8, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Want to know what a code word is?
How about "Anchor babies" for one. I hear it on the hate talk shows and see it in the letters.
Want other examples of hate speech? I even heard this one from Romney during the debates. "they get benefits that even citizens can't get. Name some of those benefits.
Posted by keepermel on February 8, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bombero42.....how about free healthcare, finacial aid for education, cuts in cost for in state colleges, special houseing for 1/3 the cost that others have to pay. Not going to jail for breaking a law.....these are the ones that I know off the top of my head. Yes some people use hate speech.....there are racist......but anti illegal imigration does not mean racist. And to put everyone in that basket, because there are a few idiots out there is wrong.
Posted by sslocal on February 8, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Care to comment on that bombero?
Posted by bombero42 on February 8, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All those benefits are also available and used by citizens who are also poor.
The law they break by being here is a misdemeanor. Most people who commit misdemeanors are not sent to jail.
So, off the top of your head, you struck out. Try again.
Posted by keepermel on February 8, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well you are sadly mistaken. It is nice that you think that, but it is very untrue. I have tried to get services and was denied and I was a homeless single mom. I witnessed illegals walk in a recieve while I was put on waiting lists and given excuses as to why they could not help me. There are veterans on the street who can not get services and they fought for our country. There are 42 kids to a classroom, there are kids not going to college because their parents are not making enough to pay the bills, try and get finacial aid when you are middle class and not a sports star. I have never heard of any illegals being denied medical treatment, and trust me we would from the lawers if they had. But I can give you the names of five people that have been denied medical services because their insurance found loop hole or they were not insured at all.
Posted by msavalla on February 8, 2008 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Having La Raza complain about racisim is like having Hitler complain about racism. Why don't you post the Founding Document, the Code of Conduct or the Statements and Beliefs of La Raza and see if their is any difference in their racisim. What a joke.
Posted by bombero42 on February 8, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No keepermel, you are wrong. Nobody can be denied emergency treatment at a hospital.You didn't and couldn't have known the circumstances or treatment given to those you perceived as illegals.
the financial aid rules are the same for illegals and citizens. The crowded classrooms affect both legal and illegal kids. Remember what the original discussion was about, naming benefits they get. You're still batting zero.
Posted by mikeb6804 on February 8, 2008 at 11:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Moraga--do you ever use the word "illegal?"
bombero--you keep citing treatments which apply to citizens and illegals alike. You're getting close to the argument --- keep trying.
Posted by Freedom1 on February 9, 2008 at 4:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What a lively debate. I agree with the majority of you.
The issue is "illegal" immigration, which Mr. Moraga does not and will never recognize.
"Anchor babies" are just that - they are given the benefits of citizenship by accident of birth and there are statistics that prove they often receive benefits and services that support their entire families including illegal aliens other than their birth parents. That loophole in our constitution is certainly one reason why those here illegally have no problem reproducing without any need for financial responsiblity. It's been going on for decades and well know to immigrant populations, regardless of their race.
Oh, and "bombero42" the affects of our crowded classrooms, thanks to the fertility of our illegal immigrant population who just happen to be primarily Lations, greatly affects the English speaking population. Our once wonderful system of public education relied on a common denominator - the English language. When you fill a classroom with a majority of those that do not, the "common denominator" changes and so does the quality and quantity of education that is provided to all. Any parent in Southern California who understands that elementary school education is the foundation for future success will gladly work two jobs to afford a private school to make sure their kids get the best education possible. Those that stay are because they are too poor to have choice. That is destroying opportunity for legal immigrants and the poor of this country as well.
And let's not even get started with the blatant racist organizaton La Raza!
Posted by Freedom1 on February 9, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, and no one should be more prepared to teach about "hate speech and the rise of violence" than La Raza, since they are indoctrinated generations of their members to participate in both!
Posted by bombero42 on February 9, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mike, I don't get your point? I cite treatments which apply to both because that was my original challenge. Show me some benefit that illegals get that citizens don't.
Freedom, I don't argue with the fact that large numbers of illegals hurt the schools. I was just pointing out that that problem has nothing to do with "special treatment".
Your statement that "anchor babies" get benefits that support the entire family is kind of silly. They get what other legal children get, which is the child portion of welfare. It is a very small amoun. The parents do not get the many times larger family welfare that goes to citizens. It comes nowhere near supporting the family.
And you are not using "anchor babies" as it is usually used, to imply that that baby gives the parents the right to live here and that the baby can import all his extended family.
Posted by Freedom1 on February 9, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bombero42 - the fact that the term "anchor babies" is being used to evoke compassion against those who are calling for deportation of their partents happens to be a reality. Even if it doesn't work, eventually these children will be able to sponsor their parents and immediate family members to come and stay here legally or remain here if they haven't already been deported. Those here legally are then eligible for benefits from subsidized housing and medical care at little or no cost them them whether they ever contributed a single dime to the system. That's a fact.
I agree that the benefits these children receive are the same available to all poor families here legally. But the fact remains that their families benefit and they are here illegally. We are destroying our middle class to subsidize poverty and that poverty is coming here illegally. It's legalized robbery.
Posted by bombero42 on February 9, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The term is being used to evoke fear and hatred of these children, who are legal citizens. They cannot sponsor anyone till they are 18. They can only sponsor their parents and unmarried siblings. They also must assume financial responsibility for those they sponsor. How many can do that at 18? We can also assume that their younger siblings would probably be legal citizens. Therefore, only the older siblings might be illegal and need sponsoring. These siblings would be as a much lower priority than their parents and could easily wait 10 year to be allowed in. By that time, said siblings would be over 30. What are the chances that many of them would still be unmarried? So the scare talk from the radio hate mongers is just that, scare talk. There would be no large number of family members brought in by the hated "Anchor Babies".
Knowledge can trump fear and misinformation if only people will be open to it.
Posted by mikeb6804 on February 9, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bombero -- My point is: illegal immigrants are not entitled to any benefits period! I have nothing against providing emergency necessary medical care and that's where it should stop. If you think my ideas are unfair to illegal immigrants, all I can say is,"Go back home." And while you're at it, check out Mexico's treatment of illegals.
I might add I have absolutely nothing against legal immigrants from Mexico.
Posted by mikeb6804 on February 9, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oops--in my above comment,first sentence, strike the words "are not" and substitute the words "should not be."
Posted by bombero42 on February 9, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah Mike you latent prejudice comes out. When you say go back home, you assume I and anyone else who disagrees with your position must be from Mexico.
But beyond that,on here, I haven't disagreed with your positions, I've just pointed out that others have the mistaken belief that illegals get special treatment.
Posted by rcamacho on February 10, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Heck, I am a mexican/Apache born here, and I get racist remarks from guess who?.
These South of the border illegals that stand in front of 7-11 on Erbes road drunk off their a--ses.
One guy is Spanish asks me to buy beer. I said "No!" in english and then he called me a brown "p---o".
I almost splapped the guy silly, and told him to run back for the border! ( and I wasnt talking about Tacobell). Same thing when I was on a Cruise with my wife (who is white and french) and we stopped in Ensenada. I got harrassesd by the local mexicans and got called with racial slurs because of my English accent and Splanglish..It is even worse when you are of mixed mexican/american decent and you are in mexico.
So La Raza can bite me because the whole issue is the ILLEGAL immigration that ticks me off.
I work with mostly LEGAL immigrants from all parts of the world. ( I am the only ONE that was born in America in my research team. They are all legal immigrants that came from elsewhere)
Posted by Freedom1 on February 11, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Knowledge can trump fear and misinformation if only people will be open to it" - very true. And it applies to you as well. The age for sponsorship is 21 not 18. Check it out at the INS website http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usci....
In regard to your remarks regarding the aid that these children receive. With several such children in a home receiving aid in addition to subsidized housing, food stamps transportation and free day care for a parent(s) who cannot legally work in this country the benefits are enough to provide support to the family - not at the middle class level - but enough to provide food, housing and education. and severly strain a system that their parents aren't paying for.
Enough said of this topic. Those who believe that children of illegal aliens should not be granted citizenship will never buy your arguments, just like you won't by ours.
Posted by bombero42 on February 11, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rcamacho, I'm sure those things happened to you. It is a universal problem. I saw it in the Philipines when one of our Guamanian sailors got a huge amount of static for not speaking Tagalog when the locals assumed he was from the Philippines.
But I never had any problems like that on my few travels to Mexico.
I'm also sure you have run into racist remarks or assumptions here, and from Americans.
Posted by bombero42 on February 11, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Freedom, do you think it would be better if we had thousands of stateless children and young adults living here?
Those opposed to constitutionally granted citizenship should also think about the tens of thousands of children of illegal aliens who have fought in all of our wars for the last 100 years.Thousands of them died for this country.
Every soldier from this county who was killed in the war in 2007 was of Hispanic descent. I would say that mathematically, the chances are that most of them had at least one ancestor who came here illegally.
Posted by RaiderHater on February 11, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ventura Star-
Why you would even run an article about La Raza is beyond me. You should at least have a rebuttal article....from the KKK.
Posted by Freedom1 on February 11, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bombero42 - these children would not be "stateless" - they would be citizens of their parents country of origin, as is the case in many countries around the World. In order for them to stay perhaps you could figure out a way to convince those "countries of origin" to foot the bill for the services they receive. Besides, we would never retroactively remove their citizenship. Our gutless politicians don't want to touch the issue of clarification of the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment "citizenship by accident of birth" issue. And because they won't they will have successfuly ceded the United States to Mexico without them having fired a shot (providing, of course, you don't count the shots fired and deaths caused by Latino gang members now reaching a crisis is almost every major city throughout the United States).
I cannot believe that you honestly believe your statement that "Every soldier from this county who was killed in the war in 2007 was of Hispanic descent." That is utter nonsense. http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel...
Citizens of Hispanic origin have severed well and bravely in every war this country has fought, but to imply that the vast majority are here illegally or children of those that were, is utter nonsense and does a terrible disservice to these wonderful, brave people.
Posted by Twslv05 on February 11, 2008 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Unbelievable hypocracy Mr. Moraga and Ms Murguia to blame anyone who responds to this illegal immigration with passion contrary to you as being racists.
We don't need to even leave the USA to see the racism from Mexicans here in our country.Just try to to raise an Ameican flag during a USA Mexico soccer game or drive through parts of LA with a pro USA bumper sticker and see how many of us Americans are treated in our own country.
The excuse that violence against latinos has risen 23 percent according to the FBI by whom Ms Murguia?The last I read regarding this issue was an FBI report on the increase in gang violence not those who you are refering to.
What about the high percentage of Mexican felons who populate our prisons that are in this country illegally do you believe they have a right to be here when they are released or recaptured again and again?
What about the high number of acts of violence commited by Illegal Immigrants against white or black US citizens,should they be considered hate crimes too?
Take a the ones who you support such as La Raza whos members actively teach its members that this land stolen and belongs to Mexico? Most rational citizen can see why those groups such as La Raza,MeCHA and other Pro-Mexico anti-US groups give credibilty to those who claim our country is being invaded or taken over.
What about the violence from these groups members during recent pro illegal immigration marches agaist those who peacefully protested with US flags for border control and and against illegal immigration?
The vast majority of this great country are against any kind of violence,suppresion of ones right to protest peacefully or free speach and are against illegal immigration from any country.
Yes there shouldn't be any message of hate Mr. Moraga and Ms Muruia but there must not be a silencing of those whos views are contrary to yours nor should you throw the race card every time someones views are contrary to yours.
Posted by bombero42 on February 11, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Freedom, you are right, most or all of the children born here would be citizens of their parents country. But they would not know that country and there would be even worse problems with them feeling even more unwanted.
As for my statement about the war casualties, it came straight from information printed in this paper, with photos. 4 soldiers from this Ventura County died in the war in 2007 and all were Hispanic. And I did not say or imply that they themselves were illegal, although some former illegals have died in this war. An ancestor could be anything from a parent to a great grandparent.
And how would what their ancestors did be any disservice to them? I don't know any of the families. I made an educated guess based on my knowledge of the community and of history. Every person alive has two parents four grandparents and 8 great grandparents.
When my grandfather came here in 1892, he sure as hell didn't come through Ellis Island or anything like that. Three of his son's fought in WWII. His wife's brother fought in WWI and was gassed by the Germans. He suffered the effects for the rest of his life.
Latino gangs are a bad problem but they are a small number of the population.
Twslv05 you have been reading the scare email. The people who want to turn this into Mexico are a very small minority. Most of the community came here to escape Mexico and it's problems. But La Raza has one thing right, we did steal half of Mexico and made it ours.
Posted by Freedom1 on February 12, 2008 at 5:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great post Twslv05 - couldn't agree more.
And bombero42, I don't agree that those in the "community" - if you are referring to the Hispanic illegal alien community - are "escaping" from the countries of origin (primarily Mexico) and it's problems. They are simply looking for jobs and a better life, as all immigrants have done over the history of this country, including your ancestors and mine. The difference now is that this "community" has been infused with the belief, by organizations like LaRaza,editorialists like Mr. Moraga and you, that they have a right to do so even if it is against our laws, based primarily on the belief that part of the United States was "stolen" from Mexico irregardless of the fact that the land was ceded by war and treaty and purchased by the United States. Oh, and you just might find the name(s) of your ancestors on immigration databases from Ellis Island or it's predecessor, the Barge Office or Castle Garden, since they began documenting immigrants in 1890. http://www.ellisisland.org/genealogy/...
Posted by bombero42 on February 12, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fredom, I have never said they have a right to be here, and neither has Moraga, just that they are here and it is not a problem easily solved by simple minded thinkers.
Taking land by war is the same as stealing it. Offering to pay a piddling amount, with a take it or leave it message, is the same as stealing it.
They are here for jobs yes, and many of them also recognize how screwed up their system is at home and do not wish it to be like that here.
I know many of my ancestors came here legally, but I also can safely assume that my grandfather was not one of them, nor his wife's parents.
In those days you could just walk across the border and go to work. He worked for about 40 years for the S.P. railroad in Yuma.
Posted by Twslv05 on February 12, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bombero42
I am sorry to inform you that I don't read or base my views from e-mail or electronic media,I base my view on this matter from historic facts and what I have seen and experienced with my own eyes.
You on the other hand can see you do get your points of view from pro-Mexican groups such as LaRaza's speaking ponits.
First of all this land we are living on is rightfully ours sir like it or not.
We faught a war with Mexico over disputed territory and American blood was spilled to to keep it in case you have not read history.
There was also a treaty of Guadalupe Hildago signed with Mexico not far from where we live in what is now called Studio City that finalized that war and you can visit that site if you like as I have.
It is an insult to any American when claims by our nieghbors to the south don't recognise treaties they have signed but insist our country do likewise with ones that benefit them such as NAFTA which by our constitution was not a formally ratified treaty.
You do have one thing right however and that is our country has benefited greatly from those who have immigrated from Mexico to become Americans by sacraficing thier lives for us in wars faught including the war with Mexico which ended in 1848.
This is not an issue race or of us versis them its a matter of American sovereignty period.
Posted by bombero42 on February 13, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have studied history all my life an know it well.
I am not influenced by what La Raza writes.
I will agree that America rightfully owns the southwest and believe we are better off for it. That does not change the fact that we stole it by force. There was no dispute over this land. The disputed boundary was in Texas and was a phony ploy to start the war. Abraham Lincoln introduced the Spot Amendment in congress, saying, "show me the spot where American soil is being taken by Mexico.
And yes, you are right, some Mexicans in the southwest did fight on the side of the Americans, just like some fought on the side of Texas at the Alamo.
There were also some Americans who switched sides and fought for the Mexicans when they saw the brutal treatment we inflicted on some Mexican civilians. I bet you didn't know that.
Posted by Twslv05 on February 13, 2008 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bombero42
I agree you have studied history from Mexico's perspective very well however not factual.
America has had trators in every war however during the war with Mexico there were very few.
I do know Lincoln and never heard that quote but I can say with confidence that Mexico was not one of his major concerns at that time.
The disputed territory was after the Texas war with Mexico which ended in 1838 and the the disputed land was territory that had been claimed by Spain prior to the Mexican Revolution and then by the Texans.
At that time the number of American settlers in this territory vastly outnumbered that of those who claimed to be Mexican citizens however there were many spanish and non spanish speaking native Americans who who lived in this territory long before it was the US or Mexico.
Another fact of this land is that it was going to be claimed by Briton or France had not we done so at the time.
The newly formed Mexican government could in no way keep thier claims to this land that Spain once held.
The war with Mexico that finalized this border was from 1846 to 1848 and its ours not Mexico's as it never really was.
As for the so called mistreatment of Mexican civilians all I can say I seriously doubt that claim has any historical fact but I will research that from an American perspective not La Raza or Mexicos.
Posted by bombero42 on February 13, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Your knowledge of history is off a bit, and mine is from not from Mexico's perspective, it is from the perspective of truth.
Look up the Saint Patric's battalion, or the San Patricio. They were not traitors, they recognized the wrong we were doing and did what was morally right.
Lincoln was a senator at the time of the war, and you have no idea what his major concerns were. I would say that taking the time and spending the political capital to introduce that resolution shows it was pretty important to him.
A big part of the earlier Texas revolt was that the American Texans wanted a slave state, and Mexico had outlawed slavery in 1828. And we kept it a slave state. Some moral position we had.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.