Saturday, June 04, 2005
Our Newest Op Ed
A Liberal Supports Theocracy
- By Rudy Takala
Democrats generally claim to be fervent adherents to the doctrine of church-state separation. And they usually are; unless, that is, they can find a religion detrimental to the interests of America.
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) recently introduced H. Res. 288. The resolution condemns "bigotry and religious intolerance, and [recognizes] that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect." That sounds innocent enough, but it doesn't take the resolution long to turn in to a sycophantic flattering of one particular religion.
The resolution begins expounding upon the virtue of a certain book, stating that "the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality." It proceeds to assert that "mistreatment of prisoners and disrespect toward the holy book of any religion is unacceptable and against civilized humanity."
Apparently, prisoner abuse is now the moral equivalent of disrespecting books. That absurdity aside, what is the precise purpose of this resolution? The section declaring "that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected," for example, isn't a controversial opinion. As a resolution, it doesn't hold the weight of law. As such, it would have no effect on our society. So why, exactly, should we pay our representatives to waste their time voting on it?.........
Click HERE To Read On
- By Rudy Takala
Democrats generally claim to be fervent adherents to the doctrine of church-state separation. And they usually are; unless, that is, they can find a religion detrimental to the interests of America.
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) recently introduced H. Res. 288. The resolution condemns "bigotry and religious intolerance, and [recognizes] that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect." That sounds innocent enough, but it doesn't take the resolution long to turn in to a sycophantic flattering of one particular religion.
The resolution begins expounding upon the virtue of a certain book, stating that "the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality." It proceeds to assert that "mistreatment of prisoners and disrespect toward the holy book of any religion is unacceptable and against civilized humanity."
Apparently, prisoner abuse is now the moral equivalent of disrespecting books. That absurdity aside, what is the precise purpose of this resolution? The section declaring "that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected," for example, isn't a controversial opinion. As a resolution, it doesn't hold the weight of law. As such, it would have no effect on our society. So why, exactly, should we pay our representatives to waste their time voting on it?.........
Click HERE To Read On
# posted by Publius @ 6/04/2005 02:00:00 PM 
|
