Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (7059)	12/5/2003 10:44:27 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 10965

The 'offensiveness' of Christianity David Limbaugh (archive) URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20031205.shtml December 5, 2003 \| Print \| Send It amazes me that people can still, with a straight face, deny that Christians are the subjects of systematic discrimination in this country. Every time I turn around there's more evidence. Since my book "Persecution" was released I've seen enough additional examples to give me a good start on a sequel -- not that I've decided to write one at this point. But I continue to encounter liberals who pooh pooh the idea that it is even possible to discriminate against a majority group. No matter how much proof you show them, they wave their hands dismissively and say, "those are just loony examples of kooks out there that certainly aren't representative of any widespread discrimination." Well, if that's the case, why do we keep seeing these cases in the news? Of course, it's not the case. There is an intrinsic bias in our popular culture against Christianity, and it's getting worse. The only thing that isn't clear to me is whether the liberal secularists who deny it are oblivious to the discrimination or are being deceitful. I actually think there is some of both. Remember, there are numerous aspects to this phenomenon. It's not just the scrubbing away of Christian symbols and expression from the public square, including public property, public schools, universities, efforts to muzzle Christian officials, the anti-Christian litmus test applicable to presidential appointees and anti-Christian discrimination in zoning regulations. No, it's not just about "separation of church and state," because the bias has now infected the private sector as well -- such as dress codes prohibiting the wearing of Christian jewelry, and the anti-Christian bias among the liberal media, Hollywood, and the cultural elite -- including their profane, anti-Christian art. Besides, if it were a matter of separating church and state, secularists wouldn't be twisting the government's arm to endorse anti-Christian values, from "comprehensive" sex education to pornography to homosexuality to New Ageism to Secular Humanism to the values of other major religions. And let's just dispense with this lie that the secularists are motivated by a desire to promote religious freedom and tolerance. Their constant barrages against Christian religious freedom and Christianity itself dispel that myth outright. Just one day this week I ran across three more examples -- and I wasn't even looking. The first involves the Meriden Public Library in Meriden, Conn., which banned five paintings of Jesus Christ, not because they were blasphemous or disrespectful, and not even because of ludicrously exaggerated concerns over church/state interaction. The images were disallowed under a policy that prohibits "inappropriate" and "offensive" fare. That's right: Jesus is offensive. Library officials were concerned that children might be disturbed by these images. What kind of mindset is it that sees offensiveness in portraits of the One who embodies pure love, and wholly ignores the egregious intolerance of those who want to ban them? You can't simply brush this off as a silly little incident. It represents an increasingly common attitude in the culture that Christianity, on its face, is offensive. That's a completely different proposition from saying that government shouldn't endorse religion. In the second example, the Supreme Court is about to hear a case concerning Northwest College in Kirkland, Wash., denying student Joshua Davey a $3,000 scholarship because he wanted to use it for the study of divinity. Thankfully the Bush administration is not infected with the anti-Christian virus. U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson pointed out that the denial of the scholarship shows a government bias against religion (the Christian religion). This isn't an isolated example. I document a similar case in my book, involving Michael Nash, whose academic scholarship was originally denied by Cumberland College in Williamsburg, Ky., when he declared that he would be majoring in philosophy and religion. The third example involves Islamic indoctrination in California public schools -- a subject also addressed in my book. Seventh-grade history students at Royal Oak Intermediate School in Covina, Calif., didn't just learn about Islam. They practiced the religion, by fasting to celebrate the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The school clearly endorsed the religion: The teacher enticed students to participate by offering extra credit. It's one thing for Christians to argue that they should rejoice in their persecution -- that's even biblical. But it's an entirely different matter for us to stand by idly as our culture, of which we are supposed to be the majority component, institutionalizes the notion that our Savior is anathema. When is enough going to be enough? When are complacent Christians going to fight back? ©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

To: calgal who wrote (7059)	12/5/2003 10:44:39 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 10965

Piling on Emmett Tyrrell (archive) December 4, 2003 \| Print \| Send WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "Hit ‘em when they're down," is our motto. "Pile on," is our hearty exhortation. Who are we? We are the noble souls of the press. We are the self-described heroes, who write "history's first draft," as daily journalism is called. Yes, perhaps old Henry Ford had something when he described history as "bunk." I may write in newspapers every week -- when I am not writing in magazines or writing books -- but I am quite confident that I am not a member of the press corps. I only "hit ‘em" when they are standing and capable of hitting back. I would never "pile on." I avoid group things, and besides there is something cowardly about the journalists' feeding frenzy. Today, the press is piling on in its coverage of the British and North American press tycoon Conrad Black. The journalists have found that Black's disagreements with members of his boards at his Hollinger corporations have put him under scrutiny by government agencies, and so they "hit ‘em while he's down." No rumor or report of irregularity is too measly for them to inflate into a page-one scream. If everything that has been said against him is wrong, it will take him years to recover his reputation, a legitimately earned reputation as a builder of some of the finest publications in the world. If Black is exonerated, you can be sure the hacks will not be writing about his exoneration on page one. I have had my own run-ins with Conrad. A few years back we discussed entering into business arrangements, from which I walked away, to his indignation. But I will tell you that in all my dealings with him he was always a gentleman, and after suffering affront from me he showed the mettle of a gentleman and continued our friendship. He can deliver a punch, and he can take a punch. Now the punches delivered at him are often below the belt. Just the other day in the Wall Street Journal -- on the front page no less! -- a series of low blows was struck. "Hollinger Investments Are Linked to Board's Perle and Kissinger," ran the headline of a story written for the credulous by the credulous. Certainly there was not much intellectual discipline present. "This board (one of Black's Hollinger boards) has ties that were never disclosed," harrumphs a representative from one of Black's minority shareholders. "If we had known this, we would have said a preponderance of the board was not independent." The "ties" alluded to so melodramatically are ties Black, Kissinger and Perle have had for years, which anyone familiar with Hollinger should have known. Even as reported in the Journal story, they are perfectly unexceptional. Yet the piling on continues. "Hollinger also made contributions to political causes linked to directors. Hollinger contributed $200,000 annually for an undisclosed number of years to National Interest." That journal is a scholarly publication dealing with international relations at a very high level. It is hardly a "political cause." A few lines later, the Journal continues in its portentous groan: "Hollinger has never disclosed its role in publishing the National Interest." Actually, it has. The masthead of the National Interest describes itself as a "nonprofit partnership between Hollinger International Inc. and the Nixon Center." Moreover, Black and Kissinger have for years been very publicly associated with both the National Interest and the Nixon Library. The Journal's story says so itself! There are more inflated alarums in the Wall Street Journal story. Hollinger has been donating $375,000 annually to a distinguished London-based think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Another secret arrangement? Perhaps to the enemies of Conrad Black, but the think tank's library is publicly known as Hollinger-Telegraph Library. "Telegraph" refers to the superb newspaper Black publishes in London. There is nothing secretive or unethical about any of these arrangements at Hollinger. There may be other things amiss, but not in these arrangements. It makes eminently good sense for a media chain to have attachments with scholarly journals and think tanks. If more of our media chains did, they might publish material of a higher intellectual standard. Black is merely being hit while he is down. The noble press is simply "piling on." Black is a worldly man, the author of a new biography, "Franklin Delano Roosevelt," that is being touted as the "definitive" one-volume book on the president. Black is surely well acquainted with the press's feeding frenzies. "Conrad Black has been a risk taker," one of New York's most respected investors tells me. "He's more than a CEO. He built a worldwide network of newspapers in an industry that is going sideways." Those newspapers are among the best in the world, and they are the most interesting and independent. That is why I hope he can hold them all together. The press acts as a herd. The public is better served by the publisher who remains free of the herd and stands up to bullies. ©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.