My younger brother and I got into a debate on Bush and how bad a job he's done. Then he comes out and says he's "tired of people whining about how much they hate him, like presidents in the past haven't been terrible before." Then he brought up Lincoln and FDR and how they've screwed up at least and I say we're talking about the president we have now.

Then a few minutes later we talk about Westboro Baptist Church, I tell him who they are and he says they're just believing in an exaggerated Christianity, which I respond with "exaggerated being a gross understatement." Then he says they have a good reason to hate Catholics because of the Protestant/Catholic Reformations in the past and those churches splitting.

I guess what I'm saying is does what happened in the past make what people do now less bad? Of course my answer is no.

Others actions are no excuse for ones own. If anything it makes it worse! We have been a witness to our own(human) history and still do not learn from it.

Until we are a part of history it is hard to tell the legacy we shall leave, there are a lot of crossed wires, misconceptions and unusual interpretations about events and people of the past just as there will be in the future.

Frankly I think that dragging up past events in order to solidify your argument can be rather silly. With that logic it would be perfectly acceptable for an African American male to go out and kill 50 white people. I mean, the white man may or may not have enslaved his ancestors in the 1800. But since it's a possibility it's OK.

Saying that we should stop whining about X because Y did the same thing a long time ago is pretty stupid, and it doesn't change the fact of what's been done now.

Keep in mind he's only 16 years old, so he's still in high school.

Maybe his point is if people are whining about X how come no one whined about Y at the time, why is X any different than Y in that respect and why should X be complained about now?
People draw their thoughts and ideas from the past because it's one of the main sources to learn from. It makes sense to draw that conclusion about X and Y even though it doesn't change what X is doing now.
It's like a court case with a final sentence. 10 years from that court case a simliar one arises and what do the lawyers do? Refer back to that similar court case and use what happened there for the current case.

It depends on the context.

What exactly was he drawing comparisons from?

Simply put a comparison between Bush and FDR and Lincoln. What I said was Bush is awful because of what he did to the Constitution, he replied like "why does everyone talk about Bush that way, like other past presidents haven't done that?" I don't know many past presidents that have done things all at once, that was my next reply.

My questions/comments...

1. What did Bush do to the Constitution? Please, no bumpers sticker slogans. If you wish to bring up wiretappings, then make sure you know the effects of the Patriot Act that created an area where they could happen, one that the SC had to rule on. If you want to argue Gitmo, again know what you are talking about, being a gray area and whether the constitutional protections get afforded to POWS or enemy combatants, which is a new area that also needed to be ruled on by the SC.

2. History is going to be a great judge.

Imagine if what Bush did actually caused some kind of change in the Middle East? Will that rank him up there with Lincoln as a great president?

3. The past should not affect the behavior of people today. The past is the past. Remember it, learn from it, but it is NOT an excuse. Therefore, black people need to get over the slavery issue, just as Jews should not constantly dwell on their history and blame the world for it.

Aside from the Patriot Act, he's also allowed for habeas corpus to be suspended, despite there not being a rebellion or invasion going on. Also guilty of allowing for torture to be used.

Oh he's caused change in the Middle East, there's no doubt about that...

Agreed, especially considering I'm black myself.

In this case, I'm pretty confident in saying no, it's not applicable to hearken back to history (especially in regards to FDR or Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus.)

Negative or positive is to be decided by history, that is the point of his point. Basically, do the ends justify the means?

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, it is okay to dwell on the terrible history of the Jewish people in regards to their national sovereignty (Israel) and their safety. They have been the most transgressed and displaced people in the world. If need be to hammer it into people's heads that the holocaust was definitively and unequivocally wrong, so be it. Whatever it takes to get people to understand that scapegoating an entire ethnic and religious identity due to apparent racial, societal and religious misconceptions is wrong.