Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘damian penny’

I haven’t been able to post as much as I’d like to lately, due to being very preoccupied with work and with other stuff in my life. So in the meantime, here are some must-read links:

If you’re not reading Imshin, you should be. She has been blogging in her typically insightful fashion lately about Shavuot and Zionism’s true meaning, and about antisemitism at Berkeley.

LGF has the photo that proves just how little the UN can be trusted in the mideast. And Meryl has some biting commentary on the latest news emerging from Israel.

In Canadian news, the election talk that seems to be dominating the airwaves. But Damian Penny and David Janes have a disgusting story of racism interfering in custody cases that proves just how dangerous these “PC” policies can be for innocent children. As for the election, Paul Jané comments on the Liberals’ transparent scheme to make ridiculous healthcare promises at the eleventh hour that they clearly have no intention of keeping. (Anyone else remember the “no more GST” promise? Remind me again why I keep voting for these guys?)

As suspected, most of the major news outlets gave the North Korea story (see below) a cursory, back-page treatment.

I implored the blogosphere to do better. And some, at least, have.

Damian Penny wrote about the “People’s Democratic Republic of Death Camps”. David Janes astutely observed that “there’s no obvious way to blame the US for this, so it’s not really happening, is it?”. Lynn B. urges us to read up and talk about it. Meryl Yourish has a brilliantly-written post entitled “North Korea is Not Our Problem”.

I’ll update this throughout the day with (hopefully) more. Let’s not allow this to become a one-day headline.

Update: Paul Jané finds the words that failed me. Jonathan is feeling “curiously dispassionate”… which I find interesting in light of my reaction to the story, which was more emotional than even I expected. And Spin Killer weighs in.

A close call for Meryl Yourish and I don’t blame her for being freaked out. Paul recounts his struggle to explain technology to octogenarians. And Damian contemplates life on Mars. (I can think of a few people we could ship there to start colonizing the place, personally. Though I doubt if a spaceship with Michael Moore AND Pat Buchanan would make it to Mars with everyone on board still alive.)

From Israel, Harry has a prayer that you won’t find in any traditional siddur. And Allison has Hamas’s particular brand of “feminism”.

David and Lynn disagree on the appropriateness of the Israeli ambassador’s response to the disgusting “Snow White” art exhibit in Sweden glorifying a Palestinian suicide bomber. Judith posted reactions from a number of other bloggers on the same subject. And Mike Silverman has the poster that puts a whole new meaning on the closing of the Passover seder.

Have a good weekend, everyone!

While I’ve been procrastinating, others have been posting.

Damian has the latest on the politician who just won’t leave office, and Paul has a few thoughts on the corruption within the Liberal government under said politician’s leadership. Steve has the shoot-an-FLQ-terrorist video game . . . and the offended reaction of a bunch of separatists with way too much time on their hands. And Occam’s Toothbrush has a link to a George Jonas story in the National Post on the real problem in the Palestinian society. (You’ll note that, unlike Jonas’s horribly sexist article on why women should be flattered to be groped by Arnold Schwarzenegger, this article has a web link).

Allison has a few thoughts on how the Israeli government can step up its PR by recognizing the contribution of bloggers to the pro-Israel effort. Lynn has a brutally honest article by what passes for a “human rights activist” in Jordan (read: someone who wants to destroy Israel). And Imshin helps Lynn figure out what Israeli turkeys say. (Personally, judging by the menus at most Israeli restaurants I’ve ever been at, I’d guess they probably say something like “I don’t want to be schnitzel!”)

Damian Penny notes that Global is re-airing the documentary “Confrontation at Concordia” tonight – presumably in recognition of the one-year anniversary of said confrontation. Charles Johnson’s got the scoop on Abu Ala, the new Palestinian puppet – er – Prime Minister. In the meantime, Gil Shterzer says that Israelis are just waiting for the next Hamas terror attack. Jonathan Edelstein has an Arrival Day 2003 blog summary. Mike Silverman notes that conservatives seem to like affirmative action when it applies to them. And Michele, in the leadup to the two-year anniversary of September 11th, has a moving post on the things that those lost in the attacks were carrying.

Mike Silverman is incensed at Bush, and I don’t blame him:

I guess I was a bit too smitten with Bush’s policy on Iraq and Israel such that I gave him a pass on domestic policy.

No more. I am wary, angry, and frustrated with the President now in a way that I have not been since September 10th, 2001.

Since matrimony is the theme of the day, let me say that the honeymoon is over and I want a divorce, Mr. President!

And Andrew Sullivan rings in on what this really means, which is all-out discrimination:

It seems clear to me that we are now headed toward a terrible and possibly definitive tempest on the issue of gay equality. President Bush said yesterday, in so many words, that he is considering amending the constitution to deny gays legal equality in their relationships – indeed to enshrine second-class citizenship for gays in the sacred words of the founding document.

In the meantime, comments over at Daimnation are going from the absurd to the ridiculous. Arguments like this one:

Aren’t religious views based on divine revelation — or, if one prefers, thousands of years of reflection and lived human experience –at least as compelling as ‘what harm could it do’ or ’studies show that…’?

Ah, the old “the scientific method can’t possibly compete with this booming voice in my head” argument. Or this one:

The same is true for gay marriage: what gay activists don’t understand is that they can call themselves married all they want, but they will not really BE married, in the only eyes that count, the eyes of God, who created the sacrament. Gay men and women are equal under the law, but their unions are not.

Here’s a thought: maybe they don’t all believe in the same god who you suggest would relegate them to second-class status! Maybe they believe in another interpretation of religion, another religion altogether, or *gasp!* no religion at all! And maybe they’re tired of having laws passed that deny them that freedom.

Isn’t the concept of “rights” itself religious? Even the Declaration of Independence says that rights are a gift from the creator. What natural entity has the authority to grant (or withdraw) basic human rights? If human rights are subject to human whims, they can hardly be called fundamental.

The old “only god can give us rights” argument. Hmmm. I guess we should take away the right to vote from Blacks, cause back when that was changed, people believed it went against god too.

The real reason behind the opposition to gay marriage is the widespread belief, supported by nearly a century of psychiatric research, that homosexuality is an inherently dysfunctional orientation influenced by a variety of social and psychological factors during childhood and/or adolescence.

You know, the only “dysfunction” is assuming that someone who isn’t like you is evil, wrong, or psychologically messed up. Maybe the teen suicide rates and the rates of “dysfunction” among homosexuals would be lessened if they weren’t one of the only minorities that it was still acceptable to persecute and oppress. Ever consider that?

Here’s the doozy of all arguments:

When I say gays shouldn’t (actually, can’t) marry, I am imposing my religious viewpoints on a minority. When they insist they should be allowed to marry, they are imposing their secular philosophy on me. Why does secularity trump religion? Because you are not religious? Oh, that’s fair.

Yeah, cause gays getting married is really gonna restrict your human rights. Suuuuuure. I find it amazing when people claim that it’s wrong to infringe on their “right” to infringe upon the rights of others. Kinda like the WTO protestors who claimed that it was an “infringement on their freedom of speech” to arrest them for smashing windows and trying to infringe on the freedom of speech of the people inside the conference. Hmmmm. Yes, I’m detecting a common theme of hypocricy here.

The Vatican is saying that Jean Chretien will “burn in hell” for supporting granting the right to marry to gays and lesbians. I don’t pay Chretien compliments very often, but in this case it’s to his credit that, as a Catholic, he is choosing to do what’s right for the country and not succumb to this blatant kind of blackmail:

“As Prime Minister of Canada, [Chretien] has the moral responsibility to protect the equality of Canadians,” said Thoren Hudyma, a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister’s Office. “There needs to be a separation between the church and state.”

I guess Bush would be exempt from eternal damnation as he has come out against gay marriage in the US . . . except that Bush isn’t Catholic.

In the meantime, Damian Penny disagrees with me that religion should and can be separate from politics. He makes the argument that because politicians are people with their own moral codes, that they cannot separate the source of those moral codes from their daily decisions and actions in office:

I’ve heard this “you should keep your religion out of your politics” argument dozens of times (especially during the 2000 federal election campaign, when people believed Stockwell Day was going to take the vote away from women ‘n stuff), and it’s always stuck in my craw. It’s one thing to say politicians shouldn’t impose their religious beliefs upon others, but if you subscribe to a particular belief system, how on earth are you supposed to divorce yourself from it when the time comes to vote on a particular issue? Religious belief is not really something you can pick and choose whenever its convenient. Everybody has a moral compass of some kind (indeed, the lefties who usually squawk the loudest about “keeping morals out of politics” are the most dogmatic, doctrinaire people around when it comes to issues about which they feel strongly), and for many – perhaps most – people, it will be founded in some sort of religious belief. And I just don’t see how you can put it completely to one side when pondering a moral issue.

In response, I would argue that the notion that morality need be founded in religion is a wrong and dangerous one:

It’s more than possible to be a moral person without being a religious person, and without grounding your morality in religion (which is a fallacious and dangerous link to make, but I digress).

What George Bush is doing is taking his religious beliefs, which are supposed to be personal, and politicizing them by imposing his interpretation of religion on 250 million citizens, some of which may share his beliefs and many of which don’t.

Now you may say, how is that any different than a president saying “my moral code says it’s wrong to kill, so I’m going to pass a law forbidding murder”. But it is different. There are concrete, natural reasons why it’s wrong to kill (a priori) that need not be based on a faith-based religious doctrine. It’s wrong to kill because fellow human beings have a right to life and killing causes grievous harm.

But to say that’s it’s “wrong” for gays to have the right to get married, just because of blind faith in religion, well, that has no place whatsoever in politics. Nobody’s telling Bush to be gay or to marry a guy. But if he’s going to tell all Americans that they can’t do it, he ought to have a damn good reason, and “my religion says so” just doesn’t cut it.

Damian responded by saying that religious codes of morality were the source for most of our secular notions on morality:

This does beg the question, where did the concept of a “right to life” arise in the first place? Most religions have a clear prohibition against killing other people (although, as everyone from the Inquisitors to Hamas illustrate, religious people will find no shortage of loopholes allowing them to get around this inconvenient rule), and that’s why murder was taboo long before secular philosophical arguments against killing gained popular currency. This is another area where politics and religion cannot be completely separated.

I think that is a powerful and persuasive argument that merits a response. I also think it’s wrong.

Rather than discuss this at length here, I’ll direct interested parties to this link to a philosophy paper I wrote on the subject. I’d post excerpts but in my egotistical opinion it’s better if you read the whole thing.

And for anyone who isn’t yet asleep, further reading can be found here, here, and here, among other places.

Lenny Kravitz recorded a song to express his anti-war views. And Damian Penny has the lyrics – or a version thereof. Hysterical!

The town of Badger, Newfoundland suffered a flood, and the flood waters froze over leaving the whole town under a block of ice. The entire town was evacuated.

Relief efforts are underway to help, and Damian Penny is on top of the situation, having sent the link to donate to the Red Cross appeal around the blogosphere.

I apologize for not posting this up sooner.

It appears that I’m not the only one having a hard time finding the appropriate words for the Columbia disaster. At times like this, I often feel illiterate. Words never seem to be strong enough to express the appropriate emotions.

The blogosphere is reacting. LGF’s Charles Johnson admits it’s not in him to be positive, but quotes a poem by John Gillespie Magee of the RCAF in a short tribute. Glenn Reynolds has, of course, been blogging this extensively, including posting reader e-mails that he has received. Damian Penny has been following the updates on the astronauts aboard.

I think I’ll take a break and just watch the story develop for a while.