[Quote from Noam Chomsky removed by the editor for unknown reason.]

Chomsky noted twenty years ago that discussion of the alleged dangers of unrestricted free speech was already occurring openly back in the mid-1970s:

"...the issue debated is whether the media have not exceeded proper bounds... even threatening the existence of democratic institutions in their contentious and irresponsible defiance of authority. A 1975 study on "governability of democracies" by the Trilateral Commission concluded that the media have become a "notable new source of national power," one aspect of an "excess of democracy" that contributes to "the reduction of governmental authority" at home and a consequent "decline in the influence of democracy abroad." This general "crisis of democracy," the commission held, resulted from the efforts of previously marginalized sectors of the population to organize and press their demands, thereby creating an overload that prevents the democratic process from functioning properly." [Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions, South End Press, 1989, available online at chomsky.info]

The Jesus Christ of the bible is a fictional character in a historical play about truth and meaning. There is no body of evidence in any science which would compel one to believe otherwise. The "new covenant" is just a bunch of silly bullshit Christians spout to apologize for the undeniable, unforgivable ugliness present in the Old Testament.

Jesus' "old man" wasn't God. He was, presumably, Joseph. And Joseph is long since dead, not in control of anything

Not by any measure.

I've had sex for pleasure for almost 40 years now. I don't recall it being the source of "painful and distracting situations". Did you get your dick stuck in a hole, or what? Why "painful"? C'mon.

If there is a god, God is not a "he". The bible is not "his" book. Jesus was not "his" son. And no, if your son is disobedient, you should not drag him down to the gates of the town and have him stoned to death by the other believers (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

The universe is a very big place. Jesus and his Dad don't have enough magic to contain it anymore.

Interesting perspective. I guess it does differ by occupation quite a bit. I've lived in Europe twenty years. In my own former field, tv news, I remember being blown away by the fact that the most popular TV meteorologist when I arrived had a ponytail halfway down to his waist. Maybe that would fly in the US now, too, but it wouldn't have at any station where I ever worked.

Oops, I guess this is sort of a new low in not reading TFA. In this case, even the fucking headline. Dress codes are a hot-button issue with me. I do think they're a much bigger deal back in the US than they are here. And even the Swiss -- at least the ones not working for that particular bank -- are less "uniformed" than you'd think. But the post was a bit odd. Mea culpa.

dress codes are bullshit. Total bullshit. Go to a bank in Italy on a summer's day, for instance. You'll find the clerks are dressed way down from what you'd see in the US. No tie, open shirt collar. And you know what? You won't have any sense that they're "unprofessional". Whatever that means. Ride the train through Switzerland. A conductor with an earring may well greet you. He did me. And he did his work efficiently.

What I'm saying is that the whole "dress code" is largely US-centric. That's not to say there are no rules of dress -- I've had the pleasure of getting thrown out of a store right off the beach in the South of France for not wearing a shirt. But just as hard-working Europeans still feel justified in demanding 5 weeks of holiday and are less inclined to put in 60-hour weeks, they show up for work dressed neatly but not in the uniform that's demanded of their American counterparts. The thing that's amazing to me is that most people posting here clearly feel the uniform is justified. What do you care if the guy in the bank has a tie on or not? Why should any employer have that kind of power over you?