Comment posted to site:
Not long ago, Mr. Sullivan debated online with Sam Harris, who arguably started the “New Atheist” movement (the only thing new is the higher number of non-believers each time a poll is taken), on the issue whether mainstream religious folk make people like the Rev. Phred Phelps, the Rev. Scott Lively, and the wannabe Rev. Tony (the PAC man, not the actor) Perkins look credible. If memory serves, the venue was belief.net or one of those non-denominational, anything goes “spiritual” metaphysical sites that actually hold atheism as highly regarded as evangelicalism. I am biased, of course, being a non-believer, but I believe Mr. Harris won hands down, the Roman Catholic Sullivan resorting the circular logic of scripture and Sixpack Chopwood speculation to give validity to his not proved claims. As Richard Dawkins might put it, mainstream Christians, for example, are deluded; evangelicals are mad. The deluded don’t wear their religion on their sleeve and tend to be a lot more open minded. But because both types of believer succumb to birth-indoctrinated religions and sects, both are deluded all the same. Worse, the Andrew Sullivans of this world are the enablers of the Phelpses, Livelys, Perkinses, &c. Religion is bunk. The only God there is is the one between your ears.
I've tried to like Andrew Sullivan several times and failed each time, for his irrational devotion to Roman Catholicism. Why he can't be bothered to wake up and recognize that he is supporting the very organization which contributes to keep him and his fellows down, I fail to understand.
Plus, people keep forgetting that only government can stifle free speech. Private companies can do what they want. I find it fascinating that when conservatives boycott company they are exercising their free speech rights but, if liberals do it then we are bullies.
I agree. It's hypocrisy. I don't like that companies can and do prevent people from expressing their opinions and experiences, but they do and there is nothing in the constition to stop them.
On COULD argue that if a company is found to discriminate against an employee (or against the CEO, which is very different) due to their expressing their opinion, or due to their being discriminatory, AND the company has govt contracts, it could be construed that govt is suppressing free speech. And therefore the govt could impose sanctions on the company or take away their contract or funding. Which would probably make conservatives soil their pants.
Else why would they spend so much money on efforts to privatize almost everything government does; if put into practice, only the non-competitive corporations you create by dismantling an agency will be your friends, which is what Bush II and Cheney were all about vis-a-vis Iraq: Bush II represented the interests of Big Oil seeking a market advantage in the sub-sand black riches; Cheney, the interest of his stock options in Halliburton. Iraq was thus the first foreign incursion by perjury and fearmongering in congress paid for by the tax payers (and China) that was engineered entirely for the profit of a sitting president and a sitting vice-president. Instead of turning out by numbers paintings of Arafat and other players, Bush II should be scratching on the walls of a cell in The Hague.
James, I'm getting the feeling you feel a little distrust for former president Bush and former vice president Cheney.