Quote:
|
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey: The religious intolerance I object to is from those (such as this unnamed Australian journalist) who would make anything of this story, not to mention those who who pick up on it. It's not a comment directed at you so much as anyone whose reaction is to look first at what the "appearances" are, rather than just saying "so what?" or "that is their right." Secondly, of course it is a private act. I think we are all agreed that the pamphlets are highly unlikely to have come from the US government. If private individuals choose to print pamphlets and send them as mail to US troops in the field, and if the troops choose to read them it is an entirely private transaction. What would be a public act would be if the government were to try to prevent them from receiving religious materials. |
Well, simey, I agree with you in principle, but I have to side with mastrap on this. Regardless of whether it was a "private" act or not, the consequences are rather public. It's the old "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" thing. While I wouldn't have given the article a second look, it was posted here for comment. That moved it from "meh" to "Well, I think..." Sure, you can take issue with the reporter (hence the "I agree with you in principle" comment), and your comment is appropriate. But that doesn't mean others who comment are guilty of "picking up the story" per se. Speaking for myself, I'm commenting on spomething that was put in front of me for comment. If only GW would submit things for my comment, the world would be a perfect place
