Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Wednesday digest

- Even the ultra-liberal California senator, Barbara Boxer, has withdrawn her support from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for reasons which include CAIR having members with proven links to Hamas. The organization, which recently tried to thwart a Florida conference on the potential for Islam to co-exist with pluralist, democratic values, is nevertheless crying racism in between championing Jimmy Carter's latest tome.

- The city of Montreal is warning pregnant women and children to not drink tap water unless it's filtered.

This must be Mike Harris' fault.

- A couple in Germany has four seemingly normal kids and are protesting a law which renders their relationship illegal.

The problem?

They're brother and sister.

Hey, as long as they love each other, right? After all, that's what we neanderthals on the losing side of the same-sex marriage debate in Canada have been told for the last ten years.

Or is it that being discriminatory and judgmental is OK some of the time?

Let's just admit that in our society, we'd rather pick and choose what's acceptable instead of wrapping ourselves in the cloak of never-ending virtue while looking down our noses at those who disagree with our point of view.

- Brigitte Pellerin argues that a large part of the economic success of the West can be directly explained by our religious heritage. I think there's something to that. One of my favourite Commandments is the one which says that you shouldn't covet your neighbour's goods - in other words, get out there and get your own stuff instead of whining about how the guy down the street has more than you do. Contrast that with this nonsense whereby some Seattle teachers took it upon themselves to ban Legos in order to teach kids about the evils of owning things. I doubt they ever mention the Golden Rule in that classroom.

- John Stossel takes a look at the follies of homeland security spending, here.


At 11:37 AM, Blogger Skeelo said...

Are you seriously comparing an incestuous relationship with a gay relationship?

At 12:17 PM, Blogger Road Hammer said...

Of course not, and that's exactly the point.

What I am saying is that the argument "who cares if they get married, as long as they love each other" has limits. It would be intellectually dishonest and competely inconsistent to apply it to some relationships and not others, especially while standing on the soapbox of the moral high ground and claiming "tolerance".

In other words, the "who cares" argument holds no water. What would hold more water is saying "Yes, I care who gets married even if they do claim love for each other because some kinds of love is more acceptable than other kinds" - in other words, "I'm fully prepared to embrace intolerance and discrimination, e.g. when a brother and a sister get together and decide to have kids" - or, for that matter, perhaps when a group of three adults raising a kid decide to call themselves co-equals in parenting claiming a loving relationship as the basis of that arrangement.

If we were truly as tolerant, non-discriminatory and "live and let live" as we claim to be as a society, than there shouldn't be any issue in these cases because hey, they love each other, right?

I'm simply pointing out the holes in this most lazy of arguments.


Post a Comment

<< Home