Letter to Dr. Laura - a good laugh!

[dilloduck]

I was talking about different religions in the U.S., in response to Mom4.

As for Indians and the British--yes, the British left some good institutions--education, the railroads, etc. But India was a wealthy country--the wealthiest in the world--for 1500 or more years before the British arrived. At that point, the British Empire had 3% of world GNP. India had 17%. The British raped the country, leaving it destitute and therefore prone to overpopulation. So it's a complicated legacy, some good, some bad.

Indians like my parents were drawn to this country by its multiculturalism--that was the point I was trying to make.

Mariner.

Multiculturalism??? How about the fact that it is the land of opportunity and freedom!

 

[Mariner]

I don't think there's anything that special about Indians (well, maybe I do like the generally peaceful, family-oriented, science-interested culture). The success of Indians in this country is mostly an artifact of immigration policty--the U.S. needed the doctors and scientists in the 60's and 70's, and let a couple of 100,000 in. It's their kids I'm now teaching (and am, myself).

Maybe you can explain why we have so few American-born and bred scientists and physicians? It's a problem we're going to need to solve, as the brainpower we've relied on from other countries dries up (my cousin says that the year he left for MIT, all but one member of his engineering class in India came to the U.S. This year, only half did--because of the increased opportunities in India itself.)

Dillo--in fact, my parents came here to escape racial discrimination in Scotland, where we had difficulty finding housing and where my father was passed over for the position of chief of surgery at his hospital in favor of a less competent Scot. So, tolerance for diversity was the draw in their case, not opportunity.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't think there's anything that special about Indians (well, maybe I do like the generally peaceful, family-oriented, science-interested culture). The success of Indians in this country is mostly an artifact of immigration policty--the U.S. needed the doctors and scientists in the 60's and 70's, and let a couple of 100,000 in. It's their kids I'm now teaching (and am, myself).

Maybe you can explain why we have so few American-born and bred scientists and physicians? It's a problem we're going to need to solve, as the brainpower we've relied on from other countries dries up (my cousin says that the year he left for MIT, all but one member of his engineering class in India came to the U.S. This year, only half did--because of the increased opportunities in India itself.)

Dillo--in fact, my parents came here to escape racial discrimination in Scotland, where we had difficulty finding housing and where my father was passed over for the position of chief of surgery at his hospital in favor of a less competent Scot. So, tolerance for diversity was the draw in their case, not opportunity.

Mariner.

But the opportunity was here too. A diverse country with a stagnating economy means nothing.

OUr public school system has been ruined by liberals who prefer to teach social change rather that actual subjects. THat's the problem.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't think there's anything that special about Indians (well, maybe I do like the generally peaceful, family-oriented, science-interested culture). The success of Indians in this country is mostly an artifact of immigration policty--the U.S. needed the doctors and scientists in the 60's and 70's, and let a couple of 100,000 in. It's their kids I'm now teaching (and am, myself).

Maybe you can explain why we have so few American-born and bred scientists and physicians? It's a problem we're going to need to solve, as the brainpower we've relied on from other countries dries up (my cousin says that the year he left for MIT, all but one member of his engineering class in India came to the U.S. This year, only half did--because of the increased opportunities in India itself.)

Dillo--in fact, my parents came here to escape racial discrimination in Scotland, where we had difficulty finding housing and where my father was passed over for the position of chief of surgery at his hospital in favor of a less competent Scot. So, tolerance for diversity was the draw in their case, not opportunity.

Mariner.

Hey mariner, what's the hindu teaching on abortion? Moral or immoral?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Yes, I have studied these things extensively.

You are simply confused. Some laws in Leviticus were to Gods chosen people, the Jews, exclusively, and only as part of a covenant, which was to expire at some time. Kinda like, some laws are permanent, some are temporary, ex. the current tax cut laws, due to expire.

The burning of incense at the altar was a specific law for the specific people at the specific time, while the fact that homosexuality is a sin is a law of Gods that doesnt change.

Now, I think you need to go take a course on reading matters IN CONTEXT so that you dont get too confused about things, and start reading about how some of the greatest scientists actually thought the world was flat and then you would assume they were stupid, oh, but dear me, that was 2,000 years ago, yes, we must read things in context dear.

But the Bible is the inerrant word of the One, True God applicable to all people at all times. Don't cherry-pick your scripture to leave out those parts you find uncomfortable, inconvenient or quaint and obsolete.

 

[KarlMarx]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

ST --- great piece, the logic is just flawless!!!

So, clarify these for me. Since we should accept homosexuality as moral, because the Old Testament laws are out of date, then

How often can I kill my neighbor? After all, if we are to turn our backs on the proscription against homosexuality because the OT laws are out of date, then we should be able to kill others, since the prohibition against that is in the Old Testament, too.

How often, and in what circumstances, can I commit adultery? Again by the same line of reasoning.

How often can we molest children or sacrifice them to a pagan god? Especially firstborn children... I believe that the pagans used to burn them alive.

How often should I dishonor my mother and father?

And for the poor, I guess we shouldn't worry about them, either.

And of course, lying. Lying is OK, because there's something in the OT about that.... of course, you and your left wing brethern have already enlightened the rest of us podunks about the nuances of presidents of the United States lying under oath (just so long as it's about sex). So I guess, lying on my time card, lying on my income taxes, lying to a police officer, lying to just about anyone is acceptable. And of course, your present signature... that's a lie too,

but hey!!!!!! It's the Old Freaking Testament!!!! We don't sacrifice on altars any longer so it's all crap!

 

[Mr.Conley]

Alas, it appears SpidermanTuba has left us. His antics will be missed.

 

[Gem]

Mariner,

First, thanks so much for continuing to express you point clearly and rationally. And thanks to those who are responding in kind, this has been a thread where most of the people are actually conversing, rather than simply hurling insults at one another.

My concern with your suggestion that we need to do things that will most certainly be viewed as appeasment by the Islamic fundamentalists (i.e. censor our newspapers so that we do not enflame the fundamentalists with cartoons) is that culturally, it has already been shown to be an ineffective way to handle Muslim fundamentalists because they culturally, operate from a different framework than we do.

We can have television shows that show people flushing the Eucharist down the toilet as a punchline, or frequently depict priests as pedophiles (even though the vast, VAST majority are not), or show Christians as fools, idiots, or hate-filled assholes. We can make fundamentalist Christians the butt of our jokes, the subject of our political cartoons, the talking point for Democratic rancor....all without fear because we know that fundamenetalist Christians are not going to show up at our house and stick knives through our chests.

But time and time again, we have seen that the Muslim fundamentalists don't do things or see the world in the same way. Saddam Hussien, and indeed many of his countrymen and women, viewed himself as the victor of the first Gulf War because Bush didn't go to Baghdad to get him and instead, chose to bow to the U.N. (and his own political ambitions). Saddam didn't see it the way the US did, and neither did his people. All he saw that mattered was that he had gone up against the force of the greatest military in the world, and he was still in power. Many of his people viewed it in ths same way - Saddam is stronger than Bush because Bush came to get Saddam and failed.

The terrorists saw our reaction to Mogadishu as a perfect indication of our weakness. Americans just wanted our men home after a tragic event, terrorists saw our actions as a weakness. One they exploited.

Our reactions to the US Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, all sent the right message to us, and the wrong message to the Muslim fundamentalists. We thought we were being calm, rational, respectful - acknowledging that not all Muslims were terrorists, we dealt with the attacks as police matters. Our enemies saw this as weakness.

During the war - we allowed Al Sadr and his men to fight us from mosques, to pretend to be innocent civilians and then shoot when the moment was right, to use every trick possible against us without retaliation out of fear of "losing the hearts and minds" of the people. We fought his men and were on the verge of winning numerous times. And everytime we almost had him - he called a truce and asked to speak with us. And we complied. We thought we were being reasonable and respectful - we wanted peace. Al Sadr and his men viewed it as weakness - the greatest fighting force in the world stopping moments away from victory to talk to him. Our methods served only to increase his power and make us look weak - increasing our enemies desire to fight us.

We have consistently, it seems, misread or misunderstood how our actions are being read by our enemies. And I can't help but feel that your plan, of respectful appeasement in hopes of winning hearts and minds, are exactly the types of actions our enemies misread as weakness.

People want us to stop printing cartoons, stop having conversations that might enflame the fundamentalist Muslims....while chuckling heartily over the cartoons and conversations that insult and belittle fundamentalist Christians because we know we are safe when we mock the Christians and our lives are in danger when we mock the Muslims...and their argument is that this will win hearts and minds...but as we have already seen - all it seems to be doing is making us look weak, and giving our fundamentalist enemies a will to continue.