You're "reading" stuff that isn't there.One of us is. Peters ignored the downsides of some of the things he lauds.
Actually, what I didn't read is what wasn't there.
You're "reading" stuff that isn't there.One of us is. Peters ignored the downsides of some of the things he lauds.
Actually, what I didn't read is what wasn't there.
Please point out where in the article the author of the piece gives ANY indication of the viewpoint you say he does. Simple fact is that you can't, as the meaning of the article is quite clear;
1) When referring to the family, he is NOT referring to the nuclear family, but the the extended family, to which one owes loyalty "uber alles". Poohbah's response to that point is right on target.
2) When referring to religion, he is talking about RELIGION "uber alles"--cf a theocracy--NOT a society where religious freedom exists.
The "points" you supposedly address simple have nothing whatsoever to do with what the author wrote.