Letters to the Editor
LeCastor
Published Letters: 1916 Editor's Choice: 86
-
Europe is much more complex than you want it to be.
[Read the article: Back to the Dark Ages]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It still seems to me that a reasonable case can be made that in WESTERN Europe the public as a whole has more freedom in practice than in the US as a whole. State churches and archaic laws on the books don't do anything in and of themselves if no one cares what you do or don't do regarding religion and religiously based behavioral strictures.
That's what i thought too, until i went to live there, and learned more about it. "Liberal Europe" with all its nudity on TV is much complex on this issue than american liberals using it as an example want to admit. I used to this too, but once you really live there, and i lived in France, which is quite liberal, the complexity becomes very clear, and biases against non-native non-christian things are also very clear, all the way up to the very top of the government.
First of all, state churches are state churches. that means one chuch takes supremacy over another. the poster who talked about the lutheran church tax in finland being quite small, and then the finns can rent out the church for weddings, did this poster think about catholics or jews or non-lutherans? would they even WANT to get married in a lutheran church? why should their money go to support the church?
Blasphemy laws ARE sometimes enforced -- there was talk about enforcing it in Denmark against the cartoon people. In England, there is now a law against "inciting racial hatred," and a play critical of Islam quickly became the testcase for this poorly conceived law.
In much of Europe, nudity may be on TV, but the whole player/slut dichotomy is alive and well. No, it may not matter much in Germany or Scandinavia, but in the Mediterranean countries and France, it's still important, especially outside of the big cities, or among the large communities of north african (both jewish and muslim) immigrants, and portuguese immigrants.
Xenophobia is rampant, against pretty much all immigrants, in western Europe.
In Switzerland, porn is on tv all the time, but women didn't get to vote until the 1970's.
Europe is full of these kinds of contradictions.
I don't think there are any Muslim countries where this is the case.
Bosnia, Albania.
for AT LEAST the woman's mental health if not for social reasons or (mostly) on request. Mental health could easily mean she thinks being a parent would be bad for her. So does this mean that everywhere except Ireland that any woman who wants an abortion can get one (up to 12 weeks). In the US there is only a constituional right to an abortion in the first trimester (12 weeks). So what's the difference other than national health care paying for it and no harrassment and interference with access by an anti abortion movement.
"only a constitutional right"?! haha, that's an amazing phrase. First of all, according to Roe v. WAde, your constitutional rights goes to 24 weeks, not twelve. Up to 24 weeks, states can do only very limited things, so that is why spousal concent in PA was struck down in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In europe, however, the parliament could prohibit abortion, like it did in germany, just by passing a law, because it's not in the constitution.
-
This is an expected tragegy
[Read the article: Give me five more minutes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I feel very bad for the author; she lost her son and it is horrible.
I have to ask, though, how did he enlist? Why? When? What makes people willingly put their lives on the line, knowing they could be killed? Was it patriotism? Was it the college money?
We don't have a draft (yet) in this country, so taking dangerous jobs, like firefighter, policeperson, and military person is voluntary. What makes people take these jobs?
This article should be given to every new enlistee.
-
The Negative Impact of anti-white racism is tiny compared to anti-black racism.
[Read the article: Teammates: Allen used "N-word" in college]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wait, Jim, are you equating anti-white and anti-black racism?
Because i find that it's pretty hard to equate the two. First, about 70-75% of the country is white, right, so if you're white, that's a maximum of only 30% of people you encounter will be racist against you, right? Whereas if you're black, that's a maximum of 70% of the people will be racist against you. Seems a little unbalanced? It gets worse. White people also disproportionately control the country's wealth, jobs, and governments, so if you're black, you have that many more hurdles to get through to get pretty much any kind of job that pays well. If you're white, you don't have to deal with that, because, in the overwhelming majority of cases, black people who are racist against you don't control anything you want to have. Yes, of course, things are improving, but in academia, corporate america, etc., white peole are generally in charge, and black people are not. So the impact of anti-white racism on white people is nothing compared to the impact anti-black racism has on black people.