Weekend News Brief
Posted by royters on July 6, 2008
DOMESTIC/INTERNATIONAL –
President Bush has decided not to boycott the Olympics in China, arguing that it would be an insult to the Chinese. Bush noted that the Chinese people or the Chinese government have done nothing to deserve the boycott. He noted a stellar record on human rights, excellent relations with Tibet, and China’s desire to promote religious freedom. Bush, when confronted with the evidence of China’s disregard for basic human rights, angrily responded “Hey, they ain’t the only darned country to violate human rights! We do it all the time, just look at Gitmo! Hell, remember that torture memo? Who am I to take the moral high ground?”
Reporters agreed with that assessment and resumed their utter indifference to anything the Bush Administration does.
Donna said
OH GOD WHAT HAVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DONE TO DESERVE SUCH A MORON AS PRESIDENT? AND HE IS SO WORRIED ABOUT INSULTING CHINA? BUT YET WE STILL ALLOW THEM TO SHIP ALL THEIR POISENED GOODS INTO OUR COUNTRY! WE MUST BE THE LAUGHING STOCK OF THE WORLD!!
AngryMan said
And that’s why the satirists have such a wealth of material.
Tony said
…”an insult to the Chinese”? What the heck is wrong with this jackass. It didn’t stop his Iraq poilcy, and what about our Cuba policy?
Oh, thats right, there’s not hundreds of billions to be made from Cuba or Iraq. I’m sorry, how silly of me!
royters said
Tony:
Dude, you should know by now that consistency and Bush don’t compute.
Flag said
China lent the US money to pay us our rebate checks. China makes most of our goods. We are in debt to China. China holds the purse stings. Congress, not Bush, is responsible for the debt we have with China. Congress, not Bush, is responsible for all that happens to the US. Congress, not Bush, should be run out to sea and drowned.
C.Rag said
Bush just wants to be there so he can have fried dog.
Malach the Merciless said
That dubya, why can’t he be president again?
royters said
Flag:
And Bush has done so much to keep Congress in line by vetoing legislation . . .
Malach the Merciless said
4 MORE YEARS!
Rusty Freedom said
What about the FREEDOM OF RELIGION in China? Shouldn’t we try to convince them to limit religious freedoms like we do in the US? I understand that China allows the practice of polygamy in rural Tibet because it is a ‘religious tradition’. Here in the US, they would be jailed, harrassed, their children taken, etc.
In China, individuals have the right to take to court those who proselytise, harass, or otherwise threaten in the name of religion. Again, TOO MUCH FREEDOM. The US is superior because religious criminals are free to bilk the elderly, the infirm, etc. with promises of healing or whatever. This gets cash into the economy instead of being hoarded for the future to pay for food and medicine. These religious scammers are able to get BILLIONS of dollars each from the gullible masses, YEAH CAPITALISM!
royters said
Ummm, Rusty, dude, I hate to burst your bubble, but all those people who steal from the elderly can be sued for fraud. Also, you can prosecute people for harassing you. Religion is not a valid defense to harassment.
Yeah, um, you may want to consult a law book every now and again before you type a comment. Just an FYI.
As to the polygamy issue, I agree that polygamy should be legalized, but the Supreme Court has made very clear that the religious freedom does not extend to acts, only to beliefs, and since practicing polygamy is an act, it can be prosecuted.
And, didn’t the people in TX get their kids back thanks to the court? Isn’t it also highly prevalent in UT?
Kind of undercuts your argument a tad . . .
Rusty Freedom said
>> but all those people who steal from the elderly can be sued for fraud.
Please name one SINGLE faith healer who has been prosecuted.
>> Also, you can prosecute people for harassing you. Religion is not a valid defense to harassment.
Please name one SINGLE minister who was sucessfully prosecuted for threatening an eternity of horrible torture simply for having ‘incorrect beliefs’.
>> I agree that polygamy should be legalized
Don’t let to many people know that, it’s a crime in this country. I guess you also agree with the Tibetian practices of polyandry (one woman, many sons). And in both of these types of polygamy, father-daughter, mother-son unions are accepted. We would call that incest, meaning being put ‘under’ the jail.
>> you may want to consult a law book every now and again…
Coming from a family of lawyers, both from US and China, and having read much about the law… I believe I’m well grounded.
>> Didn’t the people in TX get their kids back thanks to the court?
>> Isn’t it also highly prevalent in UT?
I would say very rare in Utah, and illegal.
royters said
Point One — Jim Bakker and the televangelists Grassley investigated for fraud.
Please name one SINGLE minister who was sucessfully prosecuted for threatening an eternity of horrible torture simply for having ‘incorrect beliefs’.
I don’t really know how to convey the misunderstanding you have about the law, but the law would a preacher believing that I will go to hell for believing something that is not true as a de minimus injury — I have suffered no actual damages, physical, economic, etc. Hurt feelings are not enough. Therefore, I would not have a claim to bring before the court and my case would be dismissed.
However, I think that what you are referring to is situations where people engage in harassment at abortion clinics and the like based on their religious beliefs. Injunctions dealing w/how people can behave at an abortion clinc are common and routine.
There are also nuisance laws and equitable proceedings that you can seek if people protest outside your house or otherwise harass you.
People have been prosecuted for killing doctors who perform abortions regardless of religious beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence#Incidents_in_the_United_States
It is also NOT a crime to believe that polygamy should be legalized in this country. Any law would fail under First Amendment speech or free exercise grounds.
I guess you also agree with the Tibetian practices of polyandry (one woman, many sons). And in both of these types of polygamy, father-daughter, mother-son unions are accepted. We would call that incest, meaning being put ‘under’ the jail.
No, just b/c I believe in A does not mean that I believe in B. I think that polygamy should be legalized b/c that I believe the free exercise clause includes acts, not just beliefs. Further, I think that any problems normally associated w/polygamy, abuse of women, children, inability to provide support, etc., could be dealt w/through other laws currently on the books.
Coming from a family of lawyers, both from US and China, and having read much about the law… I believe I’m well grounded.
I would disagree here, but I realize that I’ve probably come off as a dick as I’ve not tried to explain things and just merely criticized you. For that, I apologize.
Malach the Merciless said
In Communist China, you don’t protest goverment in Tianamen Square, you get run over by tank!
WHAT A COUNTRY!
C.Rag said
Coming from a family of nuclear scientists & engineers & having seen a movie with a nuclear scientist once, I’m well grounded in nuclear technology.
C.Rag said
Suck on dem apples!
Rusty Freedom said
>> Malach Says: In Communist China, you don’t protest goverment in Tianamen Square, you get run over by tank!
I saw the picture of a tank stopping when a person defiantly stood in it’s path. Do you have another?
Actually, the China Government supported the Tianamen movement in the beginning. The students were protesting the growing disaparity in income that the evolution of China into a market-based economy created. The China government viewed this as a support of the Marxist ideals of equality (while still supporting the economic transition). A large number of non-students entered the protests, displaced workers and some of the peasant class, pushed the movement toward Anarchy, and most of the students dropped out of the movement at this point (all the students I know of did). Several clashes in the streets between these people and the police resulted in deaths on both sides.
With all of the technology in China (computers, internet, cell phones, digital cameras), why have I never seen an actual photo of the Tianamen “Massacre” ? And with all if the Freedom if the Press in the US, who has read the report of the only American Journalist present at the Tianamen incident?
Was anyone killed in Tianamen at this time? Some highly-placed US groups initially put the figure in the thousands. Has this assertion ever been reconsidered (and re-stated in the general press) after the dust settled?
Rusty Freedom said
>> I realize that I’ve probably come off as a dick as I’ve not tried to explain things and just merely criticized you. For that, I apologize.
No problem, I haven’t stated things clearly on several points in my posts – so I probably came across in the same way
>> I think that what you are referring to is situations where people engage in harassment at abortion clinics and the like…
You are correct that these types of actions are dealt with in a fair manner within our legal system, and generally without regard to the the personal beliefs of the perp . We are a country of laws as is often stated by our government, and by-and-large we certainly conduct ourselves in a reasonably civilized (by current definition).
What I was really referring to is a bit different. That is, the bilking of the trusting, impressionable, and the hopeful/hopeless by the professional religious figureheads. Faith healers in particular come to mind in this post. How many of these charlatins have become rich on the promise of an end to personal suffering, illness, poverty, etc., etc.? I do not know of any of these who have been prosecuted for their false promises despite the overwhelming evidence of fraud and outright deception. Bob Tilton (hundreds of millions by all accounts) was exposed on national TV, a federal investigation resulted, but when he changed his non-profit status the investigation simlpy stopped AFAIK. He is still preaching the same junk, albeit at a much smaller return (simply millions I would guess).
>> Point One — Jim Bakker and the televangelists Grassley investigated for fraud.
Yes, Jim Baker was prosecuted, but for the timeshare fraud (a clear monitary breach of contract). However the donations given on the basis of his ability to bestow blessings (physical healing, prosperity) was never questioned in court to my knowledge. And that is the point I was making, that in the US, freedom of religion is incomplete in many aspects. Freedom from being taken advantage of from petty con-artists and professional criminals who operate under the guise of spirituality is pretty much up to the individual. If one of the primary responsibilities of government is to protect the individual, then we fail in this respect.
Senator Charles Grassley is currently investigating several of these televangelists. The details of this investigation are certainly worth googling.
>> the law would a preacher believing that I will go to hell for believing something that is not true as a de minimus injury — I have suffered no actual damages, physical, economic, etc. Hurt feelings are not enough.
If a multi-gerational church-goer who wants to be a ‘good person’ simply cannot believe what it takes to avoid eternal, horrible pain – then what is the result? A certain percentage of these will experience depression, fiscal irresponability, addicition, violence, suicide, etc. Of course many people deal with this dichotamy, but many don’t. A ruined life, and the possibility of ruining the lives of others is more than just hurt feelings.
In the US, allowing these cases would open up a can of worms. People in all branches of government know (perceive) that this would be career and political suicide. I mean, can you imagine a non-Christian running for president today? But our founding fathers were largely non-Christian, despite recent attempts at historical revisioniosm. So how many ‘professing’ Christians in the US are just playing the game? And how many can do this without guilt, perhaps terrible guilt? Is this situation healthy for our nation? How is this very different from the fear of citizens to speak out against the status-quo in other situations, post-revolution Russia communism, etc., etc., etc. If ANY ideology harms an individual, then that ideology cannot be perfect. If all ideologies are imperfect, than how can we speak of a ‘correct’ ideology in this diverse world? We can’t – we can talk of relative degrees, compare aspects, exchange ideas – but none of us, and no nation has got the goods. We all have much to learn, and we have much to learn from each other – I speak of other nations here.
>> No, just b/c I believe in A does not mean that I believe in B. I think that polygamy should be legalized b/c that I believe the free exercise clause includes acts, not just beliefs.
I was a bit misleading in this point, polyamy has existed in Tibet for perhaps several thousand years. Living in such a harsh, desolate area creates situations beyond the imagination of most people. A husband dies, and his brother is encouraged by custom to take his place. A greatly extended family makes simple survival possible in remote and stark conditions. I certainly do not feel that I am in a position to condemn this practice outright, I was merely showing the difference in one part of the world and in a compound in Texas. I believe that China was wise to turn a bit of a blind eye to these practices given the situation. And now that Tibet is an Autonomous Region, the local government has kept this same approach – not leagalizing these customs, but neither trying to actively stop it while keeping it technically illegal.
I made this comparison to make the point that it is impossible to think of religious freedom out of context, and only within our realm of personal experience. Therefore it is a bad habit to condemn another country’s actions which fall within the umbrella of ‘Freedom of Religion’ except to first apply the reasonably universal legal and criminal concepts. Was a murder committed? A Rape? The abuse of a child? The criminal aspect of these acts are common to all functional countries.
In my interpretation, America’s original idea of Freedom of Religion also meant Freedom FROM Religion. That is ‘religious’ acts which harm, defraud, or adversely influence an individual. But the idea of a Freedom of Religion in the US has de-volved into the ideology that inhibiting the forceful prostelyzing of the Christian religion is criminal. And this ideological umbrella extends to protect the criminals I mentioned earlier.
Remember that a number of the early American settlements were people who wished to escape religious persecution in Europe. History books rarely mention that the European persecutors were Christian, but simply of a slightly different dogma. But then it was impossible to prevent the persecutors from coming to the US too, so here we all are.
So when China is mentioned in the news, the bloggers all scream ‘but there is no freedom of religion in China’. But in many ways there is MORE freedom of religion in China. And the Tibetian history, the Falun Gong cult, etc. are not at all understood but simply cited as examples of oppression by rote. Before any of us point out the splinter in China’s eyes, we should try to understand the basic premises that support our blanket proclamations (study!). And perhaps we should consider the mote in our own eye, especially since that is the one that we actually have some ability to change
Thanks for providing this blog so I could freely speak a bit on this topic.
Malach the Merciless said
Here is Russian Joke . .
How long it take to get toilet paper at store? Forever there is no toilet Paper comback tomorrow. . . haha is Russian Joke
Cash said
I hate Asian people. They know why.
LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!