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
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Insanity (Score:2)
Re:Insanity (Score:2)
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
Re:Insanity (Score:2)
Re:Insanity (Score:2)
Who is to say which religious freedoms are necessary to allow for, and which are not? Why should the government be making any such decisions? But if they don't, then who will?
It's a pickle, no doubt about it.
One of the many reasons I am homeschooling.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Insanity (Score:2)
Re:Insanity (Score:2)
If a nation lets its communities go down the path of seperation, balkanization and isolement, it's a sign it's about to explode.
The French perspective seems to be one of safeguarding the culture. Many Americans share this view as well.
I view liberty in this matter as paramount, however. Society is an aggregate of many individuals and their choices. Some may view one language as more desirable than another and may wish to force this choice on others. Allowing people to choose their language, howeve
J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
Re:Insanity (Score:2)
Who is to say which religious freedoms are necessary to allow for, and which are not?
There's a simple answer to that. Your rights end at my nose. You can do anything you want so long as it doesn't directly affect me. So you can engage in any religious activity you want as long as you're not doing anything to me, or I consent to whatever you do to me. You can wear headcoverings, but you can't force me to. You can sacrifice your animals, but you cannot sacrifice mine, or a human being. (If someone f
J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
Re:Insanity (Score:2)
It's not that simple. The obvious examples are classes teaching about sex and abortion and evolution. Should we refuse to teach about them so no one's rights are abrogated? If they are taught, does that constitution such an abrogation at all?
And what about my right, as a Christian and citizen with free speech, to say that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ is going to hell? Does that harm someone's nose, or does preventing me from sayin
Re:Insanity (Score:2)
Should we refuse to teach about them so no one's rights are abrogated? If they are taught, does that constitution such an abrogation at all?
The question wouldn't arise if we didn't confiscate wealth to provide a free education. :D But you knew that.
And what about my right, as a Christian and citizen with free speech, to say that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ is going to hell? Does that harm someone's nose, or does preventing me from saying it harm my nose?
That one's simple. Saying that
J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
Re:Insanity (Score:2)
No, it isn't. You might have your own idea about it, but many people -- including courts and legislators -- will disagree with you. There's no clear direction in our laws on the matter.