En Passant: Ed Poor vs. Jack Sparrow

This quote from the Main Page Talk caught my eye:

The government cannot permanently maintain an official “neutrality” toward religious and moral issues. Look at Wikipedia and their arbitration committee, which has become their acting government. They pretend to maintain a neutral stance toward everything, but they end up protecting some views more than others.

It would be be better to adopt an official view, and then define various degrees of tolerance for disparate or opposing views. For example, the Judeo-Christian ethic against murder and theft could be non-negotiable, but a mild degree of tolerance could be shown toward, say, Robin Hood (steal from the rich, give to the poor) with strong disapproval given to piracy (no ads for “Pirates of the Caribbean”) or socialist confiscation of property.
An ethic of support for pre-marital chastity would be good for any school system or government. Perhaps those parents who believe in promiscuity could be allowed to opt out, but the school staff should not tell girls to take off their chastity rings. —Ed Poor Talk 17:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Is it just me, or does that sound like something distastefully close to a theocracy? Either way, it seems decidedly not-conservative to want the state to interfere with ads for entirely harmless non-violent movies, or with something as personal as whether or not to engage in pre-marital sex.

Makes you wonder how widespread such opinions are among the Conservapedia administrator group as a whole.


5 Responses to “En Passant: Ed Poor vs. Jack Sparrow”

  1. 1 Todd Larason June 22, 2007 at 11:58 pm

    There’s also an interesting disconnect regarding property rights: there’s “strong disapproval” for “socialist confiscation of property”, which (given the meaning of “strong disapproval given to piracy” given) probably means it’s forbidden to advocate socialist confiscation. And the advertising ban and advocacy ban are enforced by…telling publishers what they can do with their property.

    “It’s yours, and we feel so strongly that it should stay yours that we’re going to tell you what to do with it to make sure it does stay yours.”

  2. 2 human June 25, 2007 at 3:55 am

    Hmm, ok. So Robin Hood is ok, but taxation is not?

  3. 3 PalMD June 25, 2007 at 2:45 pm

    Robin Hood is easier to control than the government. The government affects all citizens with taxation…Robin Hoods can steal from whomever they wish. In other words, youcould, for instance, levy a tax on atheists to pay for churches in a robin hood fashion, but keep the churches tax exempt from government “revenuers”.

  4. 4 kelseigh June 25, 2007 at 11:01 pm

    “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation” — Pierre Elliot Trudeau

  5. 5 interpreted June 29, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    I don’t care about the article, the title itself sounds like an awesome grudge match.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

View Andreas Kjeldsen's profile on LinkedIn

Be a patron of the arts!

Support a poor writer.



%d bloggers like this: