Religious Intolerance of a Different Kind

Last week I took a break from reality to vacation on Hilton Head Island, still South Carolina, but with pools and spas.  Shortly after settling in the jacuzzi one day, however, I was cornered by a very nice couple who insisted on ignoring the Dortmunder crime caper I had been enjoying.

Of course we began by talking about the weather.  I fully expected the conversation to end with the condemnation of Obama and liberals because, obviously, global warming was a hoax.  To my pleasant surprise,  my new friends instead began to talk about how changes to the earth caused by things like fracking and oil spills would invariably affect the earth as a whole.  Aha, I thought, not from around here....

In fact, they were from Canada in Quebec.  But they had been here for a couple of months already, and had learned how to tread carefully where political opinion was concerned.  Once we had established that I too was of rational mind, they asked the inevitable question:  what's with the southern states?

After an animated conversation, we agreed that the opposition to health care and obstruction of voting rights was just not Christian, and just didn't make sense.

"However," my friend began somewhat sheepishly...

In Quebec, it seems that religious intolerance is actually intolerance of religion.  A proposed "Charter of Quebec values" would require faces to be uncovered, and no religious symbols displayed on a person.  This would apply to all public employees, and also to anyone who receives services from the state.

It may come as no surprise that the Parti Quebecois that is sponsoring this charter is about as radical as... Texas.  They actually support the secession of Quebec from Canada.  There is the Office quebecois de la langue francaise, which group of tyrants send out threatening letters to miscreant businesses who have English Facebook pages; last year an overzealous minister was forced to resign after fining a restaurateur for using the word "pasta" on his menu.

And now there is religion.  Which brings me back around to religious intolerance.  Here we are flogged by Christians who insist that they are being treated unfairly because they are not allowed to control everyone else's behavior.  In France and Quebec, it seems that the solution to being intimidated by religious symbols is to not tolerate any of them.

It seems that the religious intolerance of the U.S. and Quebec (and France) stem from the same thing:  fear of anything Moslem.  Here in the U.S. the majority feels perfectly comfortable banning minority traditions, while in our gentle neighbor to the north, the solution is to ban all religious symbols.

What we need is religion that is confident enough of itself that it does not seek to force its beliefs on others, and is content that all religions are free to express their beliefs.  Or not.

I would like to conclude by saying that I was very happy to have had this informative conversation with travelers from Montreal, although while I'm on vacation I would prefer not to make a habit out of it.  On the other hand, imagining Quebec as a place in which wingnut Rick Perry would feel right at home did give me a chuckle.

The Rand Paul Rorschach Test

I thought it was beyond interesting to hear today that Rand Paul has decided that Bill Clinton's sexual high-jinx while in office were so offensive that anyone who has received campaign contributions from him should return them.  In fact, he called Clinton a "sexual predator."  The reason I did a double-take at this presumed moral attitude, is that I recalled an incident from Rand Paul's college days which came up during his 2010 campaign.

Paul, who was (seemingly appropriately) known as "Randy," was a member of a "secret society."  Their goal in life appears to have been to have a high time and pull pranks.  The incident that was made public in 2010 involved the kidnapping of an undergraduate woman.  Talk about your pot calling your kettle etc.

But here's what makes the attack even more terribly wrong.

Bill Clinton, regardless of how stupid was his extramarital pursuit of women, was not taking them anywhere or anyhow against their will.  The Rand Paul incident was quite the opposite.  The young woman was blindfolded and tied up, taken to Paul's apartment where he and a friend attempted to force her to smoke pot.  After she refused, they forced her back into the car, took her to a creek, and made her perform a bizarre worship of a god they invented for the purpose of the prank.  Hilarious, right?

So you have to wonder about the incredibly bad judgment that would cause him to attack Clinton for behavior that was not even as bad as his own.

I can only assume that the incredibly warped logic had to do with attacking Hillary, who he sees as a likely opponent in 2016, through her husband.  And making it seem as though he is a defender of women.

I just wonder if when it all comes down to it, this kind of crazy stuff will result in Rand Paul lasting little longer than Rick Perry, Herman Cain or Rick Santorum when he actually hits the campaign trail.  I am hoping it will be a brief but thoroughly entertaining run.

The Fear Factor

Our new-found and readily exploited fear and fascination with Shariah law is just the prescription for bringing Hitlers (and deMints) into power.  Religious radicals of the Christian variety believe that it is just as important for them to dictate punishments for what they perceive as our transgressions as do the radical Islamic fundamentalists.  They too would have sinners imprisoned, perhaps killed, for crossing their lines.


Our absurd focus on whether Shariah law would find its way into our courts is occurring at a time when we are genuinely at risk of that precise type of tyranny coming from the Christian radicals.  Troubled pregnant women imprisoned for crack addiction has been a reality for some time.  The hunger to make abortion illegal, along with the consequent absurdities of attempting to impose a definition on life before birth should lead us to wonder what punishments will be determined to fit the crime.


We know that there are those among us who believe that abortion is punishable by death; if life is defined by these religious "scholars" and pseudo-scientists as occurring at conception, there will need to be punishment meted out to those offenders as well.  And who will police these criminals?


Then we need to address the issues of interracial relationships, as well as the religious practices of those who are not Christian.


We are on a slippery slope indeed here, are we not?


If you do not see shades of Hitler and bin Laden in the religious dictates of the Bachmanns and Perrys, then you are not taking their words to their logical conclusion.


Because what our Christian fanatics in this country are proposing, at the same time they are feeding the fears of Shariah law, is a Christian Shariah law.  Or, if you recall, an Inquisition.