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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (504759)	12/5/2003 10:52:11 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 769670

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 (504759)	12/5/2003 10:52:31 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Are S.F. voters serious? Debra Saunders (archive) December 4, 2003 \| Print \| Send "One of the things that I've really realized was that the work I was doing as a public defender is in many ways extended in my work as a legislator," San Francisco Board of Supervisors President and mayoral wannabe Matt Gonzalez explained during Tuesday's televised debate with rival Supervisor Gavin Newsom. "As a public defender, I was sort of representing one person at a time, people with mental health issues, poverty issues, housing problems. Now, as a legislator, I try to impact that so there are less people that end up at the Hall of Justice." Of course a public defender should be an advocate for indigent defendants. But in a position that is supposed to represent the city's overall best interests, Gonzalez instead is the boss defender of lowlifes. Oh joy. And he has used his position to thwart the will of San Francisco voters -- working taxpayers who, by 60 percent, supported Newsom's "Care not Cash" homeless initiative in November 2002. The measure was supposed to cut general assistance cash grants to homeless recipients who receive shelter, food and other services. It passed because city voters came to realize that giving as much as $410 a month to substance abusers is neither compassionate nor effective. The city would do better to steer homeless welfare recipients into shelters and, better yet, rehab or other programs. But thanks to Gonzalez-think, "Care not Cash" didn't happen. A judge ruled that only the board could write homeless policy. Newsom tried to get the board to approve an identical measure, but Gonzalez was key in defeating it. As Gonzalez said in the debate, he doesn't believe in cutting benefits for street people who would only get a "cot in the room." But if cots in shelters aren't good enough for the homeless, why fund them at all? Gonzalez railed against "root causes" that turn people into panhandlers. His remedy: a higher minimum wage, which means he has no prescription for people who don't want real help and don't want to work -- other than to keep giving them cash so they can foul themselves and the Special City. Homeless advocate Randy Shaw wrote in the San Francisco Sentinel, "If the 2003 mayor's race focused on homelessness, as it did in 1991, Gavin Newsom would win." So the question is: Are S.F. voters serious enough to elect Newsom, the only city politician to take on the city's homeless establishment? I talked with a few undecided voters before the debate, and some clearly were sidetracked. "Care not Cash" passed a year ago, one man said, but it didn't improve city streets (because the supervisors stonewalled it). Some voters were turned off when Mayor Willie Brown -- a Newsom backer -- said that Gonzalez has "some kind of defect in his head that makes him believe African Americans aren't qualified." (But that rant reflects reflect poorly on Brown, not Newsom.) Former Supervisor Angela Alioto's endorsement of Newsom -- with her statement that Newsom discussed making her something like a "vice mayor" -- hurt Newsom. OK, so what is more embarrassing: Da Mayor's big mouth or the gantlet of crude panhandlers lining Market Street? What is more damaging to the city's reputation: Newsom cozying up to Alioto or citizens holding their noses to avoid the stench as they walk downtown? Others say Newsom's too slick, too tailored, too scripted -- his persona violates the city's bohemian conceits. I wonder. Is the Special City's reverence for nonconformity so strong that voters are willing to say that if someone defecates on their doorstep that's OK because the homeless should have choices while taxpayers have none? ©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.