Leave it to the politically correct crowd at UC Davis to interpret what they consider to be religious discrimination.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/17/uc-davis-removes-web-wording-upset-christians/
"institutionalized oppressions toward those who are not Christian."
Well, never mind that this country has pretty much gotten it right when it comes to respecting freedom of religion as well as respecting the religions of others. What UC Davis would have us believe is that it is Christians who are intolerant. Of course, the folks up at Davis didn't bother to ask any Jews who was being intolerant of them. They didn't bother to ask the Christians of Pakistan, Nigeria and Egypt. Nor did they ask the Baha'i in Iran about how they are being persecuted by Christians. They didn't ask what that crowd in Cairo was screaming when they attacked CBS news reporter Lara Logan ("Jew, Jew").
Of course, Davis is taking its lead from the UN, which takes its lead from the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, which is trying to get an international law passed against defamation of religion (theirs).
Of course, it is commendable to work to respect other religions and not discriminate against anybody because of their religion-including Muslims. But to define religious discrimination as something only practiced against non-Christians is absurd.
Yet it is politically correct, isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The fallacy of political correctness is that there is no demographically defined group of oppressed people who will not, if given half a chance, eagerly seize the opportunity to oppress another. Examples include, French imperialism in Africa after their defeat by Germany in 1870, American revolutionaries insistence on continuing to import slaves from Africa, the empire run by the Commanche before they were overcome by two other empires (Texas and the U.S.), the insistence of formerly colonized Muslim nations that everyone respect their religion on their terms, the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories by Israel, the warfare between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda, the black gangs who beat up Karen students in American high schools, the Hispanic gangs beating up black fellow prisoners in California... the list is infinite.
But Gary, this article would have been more informative if you had put some content into it, instead of a bunch of stock phrases denouncing your own preferred demons. The article you linked to reports matter-of-factly that the offensive language has been rescinded. That's not the circumstance that gives you much credibility denouncing what occurred.
The point I raise is why that definition was there in the first place. Had someone not complained, it would still be there.
If nobody complained, it might be a sign that it had never impinged on anyone's life in any significant way. Nothing to motivate a complaint. If that was your point, you might have investigated how it got there.
Post a Comment