A complicated issue

This is bound to get the ACLU all upset. Sister Toldjah covers the new Dennis Prager column discussing the possibility of using the Koran to swear in freshman representative Keith Ellison (D-MN). Here's his column as posted on Sister Toldjah:

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” the Nazis’ bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison’s right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Of course, Ellison’s defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of “Dianetics” by L. Ron Hubbard.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done — choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious — Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely:

Ellison’s doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal — the Islamicization of America.

This is a complicated issue, no? On the one hand, why would we feel more comfortable about any person--Muslim, Jew, Satanist or atheist--taking an oath with his/her hand on the Bible if this individual does not believe in the words that are held within it? They might as well take the oath with a hand on the garbage can.

On the other hand, I feel even less comfortable if a person takes the oath on a book whose contents I do not A) know B) agree with or C) fully understand. Mr. Prager posed the idea of a racist wanting to swear himself in on Mein Kampf. This is problematic because, though few of us have read it, most of us understand that this is not something we want our representatives swearing to uphold. A complicated issue indeed.

But have no fear, for I have a solution. If folks do not want to take their oath with a hand on the Bible, why not have use the Constitution? Just an idea...other thoughts?

Can't we just have movies?

Without political overtones? Apparently not. From Stones Cry Out:

Mocking Religion, Happy Feet is Not a Friendly Little Film

I can't remember coming out of movie theater more furious than I did this Thanksgiving holiday after watching the animated and PG-rated Happy Feet. With relatives visiting from around the country, how could we go wrong taking both kids and adults to a cute little penguin story with lots of singing and dancing, with warm and fuzzy animal themes?

I'm not a movie prude; we check out many kinds of movies. And I expect lost anything coming out of Hollywood, with any rating, to include something contrary to my values. I let most of it roll off my back. But with Happy Feet, I didn't expect my conservative Christian family to be assaulted with what we all recognized as a anti-Christian screed, with open mockery of traditional Christian preaching against values and lifestyles contrary to church teachings. It was abundantly clear that Happy Feet substituted homosexuality with dancing as the "different" lifestyle that was the unfair target of an Inquisition on ice. It was Dirty Dancing and Footloose all over again, but with the rhetoric and situation developed to make religious criticism of homosexuality counter to everything good and pleasing.

Did they think Christians wouldn’t notice? I suppose the creators just didn’t care. We had four families attending Happy Feet, with children of all ages. Independently, parents concluded during the film that they would walk out if it wouldn’t be a disruption to others in the large group of family members who had come to the movies together.

Clearly, we should have all left together.

The creators of Happy Feet should have taken less time mocking Christians and more time making sense out of the wild leaps at the end of the film, when the dancing penguin so impresses crowds in the aquarium that they release him back into the wild. And when the community of penguins gets happy feet, the commentators of the world decide its time to stop disrupting their food supply. (Of course the humans are to blame for all the animal woes; a long movie-making tradition that goes back to Bambi).

Wild leaps, even with happy feet.

For Christians who have not seen Happy Feet and are considering it as a friendly, family film—make another choice. This film is not good for children or families, and it is another Hollywood example of open mockery of Christian traditions.

Now I have not seen this film, and I have no plans to see it, nor did I have plans to see it before this scathing review. Still, I can't help but wonder if Mr. Jim is reading too much into the film? I somehow doubt it, though.

Changes in change?

Apparently we Americans are about to see a change in our change. The new one dollar coin, set to be released in February '07, will relegate the phrase "In God We Trust" to the thin edge. From WND:

The new gold-colored dollar pieces, featuring images of U.S. presidents, will move the inscription from the face of the coin to the thin edge, along with the year and the previous national motto, "E Pluribus Unum," Latin for "Out of Many, One."

The official reason for the design change? To allow space for larger portraits of the presidents on the face and the Statue of Liberty on the reverse, according to the Mint.

The new coins will be the same size as the 1979 Susan B. Anthony and the 2000-2002 Sacajawea.

For the first time the coin will also say "$1" instead of "One Dollar."

Images of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison
are scheduled to appear on the coins in 2007, with a different president appearing every three months.

The series will honor four different presidents per year, in the order they served in office.

I don't like this one bit. I don't understand the need to change things like this. The relegation of "In God We Trust" at least makes sense--I mean, perhaps the nutso anti-God folks have taken over the treasury and are pushing to correct all the political uncorrectness that comes with trusting the Lord? But what about E Pluribus Unum? Who could that possibly be bothering, 'cuz I surely don't buy into the idea that the designers were simply trying to make more room for the Presidents' heads.

I'm not even sure why every few years we have this attempted return to the one dollar coin. Who cares? Ole George looks just fine on a wrinkly, tattered bill, doesn't he?

Holy Shmokes

Watch what you say, or the P.C. police might arrest you... No seriously:

A teenage schoolgirl was arrested by police for racism after refusing to sit with a group of Asian students because some of them did not speak English.

Codie Stott’s family claim she was forced to spend three-and-a-half hours in a police cell after she was reported by her teachers.

The 14-year-old - who was released without charge - said it had been a simple matter of commonsense and accused the school and police of an over-the-top reaction.

The incident happened in the same local education authority where a ten-year-old boy was prosecuted earlier this year for calling a schoolfriend racist names in the playground, a move branded by a judge “political correctness gone mad.”

Codie was attending a GCSE science class at Harrop Fold High School in Worsley, Greater Manchester, when the incident happened.

The teenager had not been in school the day before due to a hospital appointment and had missed the start of a project, so the teacher allocated her a group to sit with.

“She said I had to sit there with five Asian pupils,” said Codie yesterday.

“Only one could speak English, so she had to tell that one what to do so she could explain in their language. Then she sat me with them and said ‘Discuss’.”

According to Codie, the five - four boys and a girl - then began talking in a language she didn’t understand, thought to be Urdu, so she went to speak to the teacher.

“I said ‘I’m not being funny, but can I change groups because I can’t understand them?’ But she started shouting and screaming, saying ‘It’s racist, you’re going to get done by the police’.”

Codie said she went outside to calm down where another teacher found her and, after speaking to her class teacher, put her in isolation for the rest of the day.

A complaint was made to a police officer based full-time at the school, and more than a week after the incident on September 26 she was taken to Swinton police station and placed under arrest.

“They told me to take my laces out of my shoes and remove my jewellery, and I had my fingerprints and photograph taken,” said Codie. “It was awful.”

After questioning on suspicion of committing a section five racial public order offence, her mother Nicola says she was placed in a bare cell for three-and-a-half hours then released without charge.

There's no need for me to comment, as Sister Toldjah says it all perfectly. Read what she's got to say about it.