A New Jersey school continues to implement a policy of banning all Christmas Hymns and Carols. But the new twist is that the school has said that even instrumental versions of the songs must be banned. So the student orchestra is left with Frosty the Snowman and Santa Claus is Coming to Town.
This is because some students might feel left out....some students might be offended....even by the instrumental versions of the songs. Ridiculous.
A California teacher is in trouble for handing out historical documents that mention God...including the Declaration of Independence. Wouldn't want to offend anyone.
Target has decided not to allow Salvation Army bell ringers to stand outside their stores anymore (entirely their right, of course). But they have stated that it's their (own) non-solicitation policy that is the reason they're stopping their association with the Salvation Army. This also is an effort to make sure no one is offended.
However, inside the store they are happy to take your money for buying presents in celebration of a holiday that might offend.
We have no reasonable expectation of not ever being offended. Thanksgiving was about thanking God. Christmas is about Jesus. Our historical documents mention God because God was important to those who penned those documents...the founding documents of our country.
Freedom means that we might sometimes be offended. People should learn to deal with it.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Scattershooting...
Sorry for the absence. We had a tragedy that needed my attention and I gave it. (read here)
Was the punishment handed down by NBA Commissioner David Stern the right one? Why only Artest? What about the fans...what is the proper punishment there?
Should beer be banned at NBA games? How about cutting off sales at the fourth quarter like baseball cuts off sales in the 7th inning. Should that be done?
About Thanksgiving...is it a religious holiday? Thankful for what? Thankful to whom?
Again, sorry for the absence.
Discuss.
Was the punishment handed down by NBA Commissioner David Stern the right one? Why only Artest? What about the fans...what is the proper punishment there?
Should beer be banned at NBA games? How about cutting off sales at the fourth quarter like baseball cuts off sales in the 7th inning. Should that be done?
About Thanksgiving...is it a religious holiday? Thankful for what? Thankful to whom?
Again, sorry for the absence.
Discuss.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Rules of Engagement
This has every possibility of becoming the next Abu Ghraib.
First, we should say that if a soldier did something wrong, it will be dealt with. Shooting someone who is unarmed and poses no threat is wrong and I am confident will be dealt with swiftly and appropriately.
However, remember the context of the event. These men have been fighting non-stop for 7 days at the time. One day before, another unit of soldiers went into this mosque that the enemy had occupied and was using as a fortress. When that unit went into that mosque there were booby-trapped dead insurgents (bodies with bombs set to explode and kill US service men)...one Marine was killed by an exploding insurgent!
So the next day another unit hears gunfire from the mosque. Their unit enters the mosque thinking that perhaps other insurgents have retaken the building. In the building are some wounded and dead insurgents.
The soldier (who just the day before had been shot in the face, but was back fighting with his unit) believes the man is faking and is still a threat. He shoots the man in the head killing him.
How, given the ways of this enemy, -- in a battle where even the dead pose a threat -- can you ever determine that someone poses no threat. If these are the facts of the case (and time will tell us more in the days ahead because of the investigation), is the soldier to blame?
This is not Abu Ghraib, but I'm not sure you're gonna know that by watching the news for the next week or so.
First, we should say that if a soldier did something wrong, it will be dealt with. Shooting someone who is unarmed and poses no threat is wrong and I am confident will be dealt with swiftly and appropriately.
However, remember the context of the event. These men have been fighting non-stop for 7 days at the time. One day before, another unit of soldiers went into this mosque that the enemy had occupied and was using as a fortress. When that unit went into that mosque there were booby-trapped dead insurgents (bodies with bombs set to explode and kill US service men)...one Marine was killed by an exploding insurgent!
So the next day another unit hears gunfire from the mosque. Their unit enters the mosque thinking that perhaps other insurgents have retaken the building. In the building are some wounded and dead insurgents.
The soldier (who just the day before had been shot in the face, but was back fighting with his unit) believes the man is faking and is still a threat. He shoots the man in the head killing him.
How, given the ways of this enemy, -- in a battle where even the dead pose a threat -- can you ever determine that someone poses no threat. If these are the facts of the case (and time will tell us more in the days ahead because of the investigation), is the soldier to blame?
This is not Abu Ghraib, but I'm not sure you're gonna know that by watching the news for the next week or so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)