12/17   Excellent article on religion in politics, tolerance, and multi-
        culturalism.
        http://urltea.com/2dju?weeklystandard.com
        http://csua.org/u/kac  [urltea has been flaky. -op]
        \_ instead of stuff like http://urltea.com, can't we use some sort of standard
           command-line compressor/decompressor? Some reversible hashfunction.
           Anyone know of a tool like that?
           \_ Would that significantly compress the URL given that we'd have
              to stick to ASCII chars?
             \_ I think in general you don't need huge compression, just
                "enough". Just a thought anyway, I hate url shortening sites.
                \_ Learn some information theory and come back later.
                  \_ I bet using UTF-8 would allow enough compression for
                     normal links. Even ASCII has lots of extra crap.
                     I'd rather not shorten them at all than use temporary
                     shortened links that won't remain valid.
                     \_ Pat Pat
           \_ Um, are hash functions usually reversable?
              \_ Not in the most typical use, but there are very many that are.
                 One hashing algorithm which is which you might not have
                 realised is encryption.
             \_ No. But I was asking...
        \_ Ah, a former- and now anti-Mormon writes about religion, slamming
           Mormons in the process.  By the Weekly Standard no less.
           \_ I'm ignorant here.  Is the Weekly Standard a leftie rag or a
              righty rag?
              \_ Righty.
           \_ This does such injustice to the article. You're all troll hags. -op
        \_ What is wrong with the usual url shorteners?  How would a home
           grown motd version be any different?
        \_ Did anyone actually read the entire article? The analysis is quite
        \_ Did anyone actually read entire the article? The analysis is quite
           good, if you look past the lame jokes, and conservative POV. -op
        \_ I actually read this very long and dense article that took me
           over an hour to read and digest. He make some very good points,
           over an hour to read and digest. He makes some very good points,
           but I think he is wrong to claim that the GOP's inner debate
           on religious tolerance somehow tars all of America with the
           brush of intolerance. There will be a Jewish President, a Muslim
           President and probably even a Mormon President someday. But they
           will all be Democrats. The GOP has made itself into the Grand
           Ole' Fundamentalist Party and its inability to nominate anyone
           who is not a mainline Protestant is the inevitable result of that
           choice. Perhaps it can unmake itself, but only after a long time
           in the political wilderness of being out of power.
           \_ I don't think he said the GOP's debate tars all. He said both the
              (current) religious right and (current) multiculturalist left both have
              (current) right and (current) multiculturalist, relativist left both have
              it wrong. (and that Romney is a twink.) Then he laid out an excellent way
              to objectively draw the line about what should be in bounds and what
              should not. And I almost said which "religious subjects", but it's more
              subtle than that, for good reasons. Thanks for commenting. -op
              (current) religious right and (current) multiculturalist left
              both have it wrong. (and that Romney is a twink.) Then he laid out
              an excellent way to objectively draw the line about what should be
              in bounds and what should not. And I almost said which "religious
              subjects", but it's more subtle than that, for good reasons.
              Thanks for commenting. -op
              \_ Yes, he briefly and without too much evidence claimed that
                 multi-culturalism was just as bad as the Right's overt
                 pro-Christian bias. I know he was speaking to an audience
                 that probably already agrees with him, so he didn't feel
                 the need to make much of a case, but I think that:
                 1) multiculturalism is hardly monolithic on the left
                 2) multiculturalism as practiced in the United States
                    is not really significantly different than the more
                    traditional liberal virtues of tolerance that he espouses
                 I have heard that  Europe is different, in that they are
                 making special exceptions for mostly Muslim immigrants
                 (except in France, which has a strong secular tradition)
                 and having a tough time integrating them (especially in
                 and are having a tough time integrating them (especially in
                 France, probably because they are trying harder there),
                 but I honestly don't have way to "reality check" these
                 but I honestly don't have a way to "reality check" these
                 claims. Here in the US, new immigrants are assimilating
                 all the time. Some groups better than others, no doubt, but
                 what is the out-marraige rate for Buddhists in this country?
                 For Jews? For Muslims? I am sure it is higher here than
                 anywhere else.
                 \_ I agree, but it seems clear he's talking about multiculturalism
                    in the US as preached and prosecuted (persecuted? :D), not as
                    practiced. Always a wide gap between the two in US, versus Europe,
                    because the left is large and in charge over there.