I guess that they were just the poodles of the UN?

seem have a much more raw state of affairs in the relationship between the people and the government, and between the classes in general. Their immigrant population is marginalized, hostile, and unassimilated. Their workers believe that they are entitled to their job no matter what they do - and it is almost impossible to fire someone in france. If that is threatened, the labor protests on a mass scale that are unprecendented in our Middle Class dominated society.

It seems like the US is generally more affluent and sedentiary society without too much of a pretext to get riled up, and without an inbred sense of entitlement that permeates some European societies and especially France.

Hopefully Sarcozy is strong enough to smack that head on.

If we still had as strong a sense of segregation as the French did, and we elected a president who not only supported that segregation, but did so with a few choice comments about what he thinks of the non-French population, I think we'd see a fair amount of conflagrations. Heck, look what we did over the trial of a former football player.

There is an interesting Newsweek article about it that I read - With God in His Sights . An interesting excerpt:

One might naively imagine that an attack on fundamentalism would help restore his credentials on the left, but Hitchens is under no such illusion. "This book is a repudiation of left-liberal weak-mindedness," he says in an interview, in particular the tendency to see Islam as a religion of the oppressed and to excuse its radical excesses. "It will probably make [the left] hate me more. If that's possible."

I certainly believe that theistic religions are a creation of man. I do not believe that god actually passed any words to those who wrote the bible, per se.

I am comfortable with a view that traditional religions were created as a template for how to live one's life, and that much of the ritualistic aspects of these religions are aimed at making things easier for the uneducated to assimilate.

I believe that it does not matter whether a God truly exists or not. Even if God is a fabrication of man's imagination, he still fulfills the role on Earth that is required of him. I am comfortable with the concept of God as being a metaphorical entity which embodies those concepts which are important within the dogma of a given religion.

I find this point interesting:

With eloquent clarity, Hitchens frames the argument
for a more secular life based on science and
reason ...

In other words, he is evangelizing for a secular progressive view of religion. I know you won't like me calling it religion because that conjures up images of the "evil supernatural", but from the perspective that Religion is nothing more than a moral code and a prescription for "right thinking and living" I honestly believe that there is a case to be made that secular progressivism is actually the left's version of religion.

in my diary too. There is no such thing as a neutral language, so the language/words we use now are no less thought-control than the PC versions. The only difference is one creates a society based on merit (personal ability and accomplishments) and one doesn't.

Here is what I say in the original diary about the matter:

Tlaloc says this is mind control and newspeak. In a way he is right: political correctness is attempting to change thoughts and behaviors. These changes are for the better in my view, since they help dissipate the reality that leads to an unjust society. What he does not understand is that the language we use now is not more neutral than the ‘politically correct’ terminology. It is just as loaded and creates its own version of reality and newspeak. The only difference is that one leads to positive results and a more equal society, while the other traps groups in negative connotations (thus subjected to a less-empowered reality).

(Note to Tlaloc: I'm not trying to open old wounds with you. I would prefer to let bygones be bygones, but I had to address GoRight's point).

It's not like language is objectively neutral now. So why not change an already negatively loaded language to a positively loaded language. Again, this is not for every word in the English language, just those that are negatively loaded: fireman (loaded for gender perception) to firefighter (loaded to the job performance). Easy enough right?

You can use whatever language you want, and you can bear the ethical burden of shutting out large parts of our society. I prefer a language built on inclusiveness and merit, as I think these are the goals of America. Nobody is trying to push anything on you (except maybe the Mormons that knock on your door before noon--did you watch the video yet?). You do not have to use PC language, nor do you have to follow any one's religion. Face the consequences of your decision whether that is a trip to hell or a punch in the nose or fired from your job to dirty looks. Your choice. #2 is also a loaded question since I do not buy your premise that secular humanism is a religion as we already discussed in the philosophy thread.

given your passionate opposition to terrorism and anything that supports it......

I wonder if you feel that buying gas is a neutral act, since some of the money
obviouslly goes to countries whose leaders support the destruction of Israel.

When you buy gas do you assume it's a neutral act that does not support terrorism and therefore evil?