Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Let me give the opinion of a French atheist. That law is pure insanity, and that's not the first insanity that is done by this government. Instead of attacking religious fundamentalism and intolerance by teaching history of religions in schools (*), they attack little symbols. How much easier, isn't it. Consequence : some Muslims and some Jews will feel persecuted, there will be more private schools, (I'm totally against privatization of education BTW), and more Zacharias Moussaouis will grow in the shadow
    • Thanks. You at least help restore my faith in the French people, if not their government. :)

      I'd question the government's role in attacking religious beliefs, though. Again, as long as no rights are violated, people should be allowed to believe whatever they want (and as long as they are willing to fact the consequences of their beliefs). For example, a Muslim may be allowed to hate Christians so long as he does not engage in violence toward them. (And so long as he is willing to accept the fact that

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
      • We can't obviously mind-control everyone, forcing them not to hate their fellows :) But the main purpose of a democracy is to provide a safe place for citizens, where they can enjoy their freedom without being paralyzed by the fear of seeing their synagogue burnt (taking an example from real life.) Thus I don't think at all that a government should attack any religious belief -- religion is not the government's business. But it should make efforts to prevent, as much as possible, the spreading of fundamenta
        • by jordan (120) on 2003.12.12 17:43 (#26496) Homepage Journal
          • But the main purpose of a democracy is to provide a safe place for citizens, where they can enjoy their freedom without being paralyzed by the fear of seeing their synagogue burnt (taking an example from real life.)

          I disagree that "main purpose of a democracy" is to protect minorities. In fact, bigotry and hatred of minority groups can flourish in a democracy. As someone said "A Democracy is three wolves and
          two sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

          Am I against democracy? No. As Winston Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst possible form of government except, of course, all others that men have attempted."

          Democracy is a necessity because all other forms are unstable and tend to be even more unfair to minorities than democracy. At least, in a democracy with an enlightened populace, whatever that really means.

          I agree with you about the primacy of education, by the way. An educated or enlightened populace is the only way Democracy can survive. The sad state of education has me concerned...

          I also think that it's best when people live under a strict Constitution that is difficult to change. This helps to prevent heated emotions and mob rule from taking over. I wish that the government of the US took it's Constitution more seriously, though.

          • I disagree that "main purpose of a democracy" is to protect minorities.

            Right. That is the job of a Republic. :-)