![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I didn't write this one, though - it just seems someone else did the research, linked to it, and couched it in some rather foul language to get their point across. The points they got across are pretty much identical to mine, though much, much harsher.
I'm going to go back to it now and click on some of the links. (Aside: the internet has changed how people write op-ed pieces, by allowing them to embed their proof without a single extra written word. They state it, make the statement a link, and voilĂ , point proven, whereas before, one actually had to take time out from the vitriol to explain what people would find if they looked up the reference in question.
Anyway, here it is, and be warned, if your workplace is strict about bad language, then this is definitely not work-safe: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=31250
I'm going to go back to it now and click on some of the links. (Aside: the internet has changed how people write op-ed pieces, by allowing them to embed their proof without a single extra written word. They state it, make the statement a link, and voilĂ , point proven, whereas before, one actually had to take time out from the vitriol to explain what people would find if they looked up the reference in question.
Anyway, here it is, and be warned, if your workplace is strict about bad language, then this is definitely not work-safe: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=31250
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-26 11:35 pm (UTC)Not that that's a bad thing... although I could see it getting people who believe in the doctrines of Christianity kinda upset... although I'd say he was going after those who do the whole "literal interpretation of the Bible" thing rather than those who use the Bible as one of the pillars of their beliefs.
I liked it... it made the points very clearly, though I don't have time to go through and check the links to see how solid his facts and statistics are.