bleeding heart

For me personally, the idea of "grandfathering religions" is a sort of shrug-able issue. However, I can fully appreciate the objections to such an idea: it's positing religious faith as somehow special, above other considerations...perhaps a non-controversial notion to the Faithful, but quite outlandish to many of us who are not.

That was sharp.

And what excellent result accrues from deeming children who don't learn well or quickly as "turds"?

I'd like to know Rob Ford's opinion of InSite.

Thanks, Cybercoma....well-timed perspective of the type that's often forgotten. It's a complex matter. I mean, I agree completely, and without reservation, that there are serious human rights issues in what we term "the Muslim world," issues so grotesque they are almost beyond belief in some cases (though I would suggest we get more specific, as different countries and regions have different political, cultural, and, yes, religious factors that severely complicate the simplistic criticisms...or the simplistic defenses). There are a lot of practices that are backwards and ugly...and sometimes stunningly vicious. But the reason I agree with you and other "relativists" that the colonial powers have been a crucial part of the problem--a key problem--and that this has continued under a cosmetically different manner in the "post" or "neo" -colonial global order, is for practical reasons...not "Western self-flagellation" or any of the other nonsense terms floated about by Western nationalists. What it amounts to is that we are responsible for our own actions. Not exactly a radical stance, I once thought, but I now see that it is, aside from being used as boilerplate to berate the poor, here and elsewhere. But the principle is real enough. And in a Western democracy, we can collectively have some effect on the way our nations behave...it's limited, or at any rate difficult, but there's still something to it. I bring this up because I wish to posit something: let's say, for argument's sake, that most of us are opposed to terrorism, for a salient example of a matter that garners a lot of attention. It's a pretty uncontroversial statement. So ok...terrorism causes suffering, and we wish to decrease it as much as possible. Well, there is a lot of evidence, overwhelming evidence, that the so-called "war on terror" has dramatically increased the amount of global terrorism. And we're not talking in conventional war terms, with an army fighting back in increased desperation...we're talking about terrorism that would not occur were we behaving differently. Anyone who does not take this seriously can have no real interest in decreasing terrorism. A very notable example is Iraq; the terrorist attacks in London were explicitly pointed out by British Intelligence as being a direct result of the war on Iraq...which was a controversial war in which every horror was aptly predicted beforehand. More importantly (in terms of scale, and of human lives lost) is the terrorism occurring within Iraq itself. The invading coalition precipitated it, and shares direct culpability for all of it. So that's pretty serious. Not to mention the rise in Islamic fundamentalism....and that women's rights are less protected now than they were before the war.. And I'm here being generous to the more hawkish among us...because I am so far omitting the terrorism that is directly committed and/or materially supported by the Western nations themselves, as a matter of actual policy. Honestly, to hear people claim--always angrily--that "politics has nothing to do with it," and that "Islam" alone is the problem...is astonishing. Truly staggering. It makes the self-indulgent and dishonest Cold War binaries seem nuanced by comparison.

I agree, Wilber. Further, "small government" folks of every persuasion are going to have to admit that they love them some Big Government!....the Biggest Government you can get. Literally nothing is more statist than the death penalty.

Maybe Michael's right, that Charles explaining to multiple posters his view of various situations only invites more criticism and argument. but we've got to be fair-minded about this (I'm not directing this at you, Michael.) Charles' explanation(s) were good. They even made me rethink a point or two. And several people have been complaining about insufficient transparency, about moderator bias, about a lot of things. And that's fine; but surely Charles post puts at least some matters to rest...or at least shows that he's listening to complaints?

I think the claim that "[we] people have a hate on for Ford because he has a drug problem" has already been answered. so why not respond to the answers, rather than making the (already-answered) assertion again?

Thanks, Rue...some much-needed perspective.

No, no...it doesn't apply when the polls read the "wrong" way. I already spelled it out: if the Liberals (never mind the "commies" shudder) are doing well in the polls, it's because Canadians are not "paying attention." It's when the Conservatives gain an uptick or two that is evidence of Canadians "paying attention." What could be more clear than that?

I like how that if Harper appoints Toews...it will magically be "the left's" fault, and that "the left" will "have only themselves to blame." Harper, evidently, should not be held responsible even for his own direct actions. Partisan tautology is as perfect as tautology gets.

What exactly was the "propaganda," assuming that words have meanings that can be found out and discussed?

Geert does not impress me much, either.

I actually understand why people don't like Wes Anderson movies, just as I understand why people don't like movies like Michael Haneke's Funny Games. (which I loved.) They are self-consciously movies, and lack (at least at times) realist conventions. I didn't much care for Moonrise Kingdom, but I adored The Royal Tenenbaums. I'll check out "Hotel" for sure.

But he was suspended precisely because of his action re the thread drift; I know, because he sent me a PM and showed me the moderator remarks.

I agree, but I would go further than that. The fact that people think this benign entity we call "the West," led by its secular-liberal Messiah state, is flitting about the world "fighting terrorism" is of precisely the same intellectual degree as any of the religious beliefs. And arguably of an even lesser moral degree. And yet many people really do seem to believe this--that the "war on terror" is real, and that "they" commit terrorism, while "we" do not. It's like listening to tantrum-y children, but without the ameliorating innocence. Mind you, it appears to be mostly a Western delusion; people in what we call the "developing world" tend to have a far more jaded and clear-eyed view of such antics.

TimG, I have no idea why you insist upon repeating that I'm "ignoring" the use of the word "sacredness"; in fact, I take that word as pivotal to the exceptionalism granted heterosexuality over homosexuality--a point they have been clear and unambiguous about, even as you pretend we "cannot know" whatever they could mean. They know--and say so. Only you are left in the dark. As to this point about us not knowing what they mean--or if they mean anything at all--by inserting "between a man and a woman" into their "sacredness" formulation...I already quoted you from the "FAQ" page, and included the link, in which they use the exact same phraseology ("Between a man and a woman") to explain that they consider homosexuality to be at odds with their explicitly literalist reading of Scripture (think "abomination," for example); their very religious mandate, in other words. Mere coincidence, I suppose, as they add the same phraseology into their covenant; because superfluity in grammar is an important enticement to future students, I take it? As to the rest of your musings, I have already made it more than clear, in this very thread, that I agree they have the right to do as they are doing. That's their business, as far as I'm concerned. That in no way determines that I should not be pointing out their superstition-generated bigotry if it so pleases me to do so.

I heard the story by watching a trailer clip for the movie "God Loves Uganda." It doesn't mention any other nationalities, so I can't speak to it.,

That rings a bell, yeah. But I'm still not sure why firearms can't be used. (The blank conscience round is unnneccessary in any case, since as it is currently, the agent or agents are unambiguous; there is no blank conscience injection.) Perhaps it summons images of less, shall we say, accountable governments' and legal systems' methods--the shot to the back of the head seems brutal (it is, of course, but no moreso than many other methods). But that's pure optics, divorced from logic altogether.

I don't know the stats for Christian sympathy with draconian laws (including imprisonment) for homosexuality in Uganda...but I'll wager it's a lot higher than 18%. The part played by American missionaries in the sordid mess is also doubtless an interesting story.

But--and this is a perfectly serious question--what is the antipathy towards bullets? What's the issue? There are of course weapons and calibres which reduce the risk of botched executions to near-zero.

Even if there's some truth to that, I think it reasonable to wonder about the government who is carrying out such "examples." I do remember reading somewhere that most of the sentences had been commuted to life in prison. But an eight-minute trial with virtually no defense allowed is something supported only by reactionary servants of Power.

Benghazi aside, I don't quite understand the liberal appeal of Hillary Clinton. Is it her remarks about flattening Iran? Her position in an administration that murders at will? Or her once-position on the board of Walmart? .....Scratch that. Her Establishment liberal credentials are strong indeed. It's the admiration of her from some on the lefty end of the "liberal" spectrum that baffles.

When I was smoker, I thought them a royal pain in the ass. But no, of course I didn't then, nor do now, consider them bigoted. Are you going to let the shoe drop and conclude the "gotcha" attempt, or do you have something more mysterious in mind?

By the way....are two opponents here actually discussing the "guts" it takes to kill a man strapped to a table? Oh, the courage!