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

Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • by Ovid (2709) on 2005.05.16 13:25 (#40440) Homepage Journal

    I found the writing offensive because I find lies that promote bigotry and intolerance to be offensive. For example, their argument against multiculturalism is that if the concept was valid "there wouldn’t be such a tremendous number of people worldwide wanting to take up residency in the United States..." This "rebuttal" to multiculturalism is typical of people who pervert the argument, whether knowingly or not. Many of the people trying to get over to the United States are doing so for money or to escape violence. Having a fat wallet and a relatively peaceful society is only a small, small part of a culture. There are problems associated with multiculturalism, but "we're right and you're wrong" is not one of them.

    The author further goes on to write:

    But no—people aren’t flocking to Mexico, to India, or to any of the Islamo-Facist nations of the Middle East, and in fact precisely the opposite is happening ... Because Western culture ... is still correctly perceived to offer greater liberty and opportunity than most any other place on earth.

    I just point that out to make clear that I'm not taking the author's words out of context. Taking two positive facets of our society and putting them forward as a justification for most of our culture is stupid. Naturally, I wasn't surprised when I discovered the author further went on to call for limiting immigration.

    And let's consider the author's take on freedom of religion:

    The concept of freedom from religion has emerged in recent decades to turn the 1st Amendment on its head, all but outlawing Christianity and rendering the biblical Christian worldview illegal “hate” speech for adhering to a set of immutable moral standards and postulating absolute truth.

    Outlawing Christianity? Calling the worldview "illegal hate speech?" This is the sort of propoganda the religious right peddles in an attempt to scare people. It's ridiculous. No one's calling for outlawing Christianity or labeling the Christian worldview "illegal hate speech" (though Christianity is sometimes used as a justification of thinly veiled hate speech, the objection is to hate speech, not Christianity, but I doubt our author would be bright enough to realize that.) Government should stay out of religion. It should neither endorse it nor suppress it. Money shouldn't be spent on those things. You want a nativity scene? Have you or your church put one up. Don't spend my tax dollars on it. You want prayer in school? Send your kids to a private school. Don't spend my tax dollars on it. And why are we spending my tax dollars on House and Senate Chaplains [c-span.org]? If people want religion, why are they demanding the government fund it? It's a waste of my money.

    What's frustrating in reading through this site is that the author raises valid points, but when I get to the author's recommended articles [democracyi...reedom.com] page, the truth starts to become clear. Many of those articles point to the Lew Rockwell site [lewrockwell.com]. This is an interesting bunch. Aside from following the Austrian School of Economics (which has flaws that I won't go into now because there's not enough room in the margin), they also like the idea of the South seceding from the union. I like that thought, too, frankly. I never met a nicer bunch of racists than those I grew up with in Texas. Let them have their little anti-immigration Christian nation down there and more power to 'em!

    • Re:Yes! by jdavidb (Score:2) 2005.05.16 15:02
      • Re:Yes! by Ovid (Score:2) 2005.05.16 15:37
    • Re:Yes! by pudge (Score:2) 2005.05.16 17:03
      • Re:Yes! by rafael (Score:2) 2005.05.17 2:59
        • Re:Yes! by pudge (Score:2) 2005.05.17 9:44
          • Re:Yes! by rafael (Score:2) 2005.05.17 10:02
            • Re:Yes! by pudge (Score:2) 2005.05.17 10:22
            • Re:Yes! by jdavidb (Score:2) 2005.05.17 12:25
            • Re:Yes! by Aristotle (Score:1) 2005.05.21 2:34
            • Re:Yes! by rafael (Score:2) 2005.05.17 12:25
            • Re:Yes! by rafael (Score:2) 2005.05.17 12:51
            • Re:Yes! by pudge (Score:2) 2005.05.17 13:29
            • Re:Yes! by pudge (Score:2) 2005.05.17 13:32
            • Re:Yes! by jdavidb (Score:2) 2005.05.17 13:58
            • Re:Yes! by pudge (Score:2) 2005.05.17 14:41
            • Re:Yes! by sigzero (Score:1) 2005.05.17 15:52
            • Prove a negative by gizmo_mathboy (Score:2) 2005.05.18 16:28
            • Re:Yes! by Aristotle (Score:1) 2005.05.21 2:44
            • Re:Yes! by rafael (Score:2) 2005.05.27 10:25