SPEAKING AS AN INFIDEL

A story about a woman in the UK employed by British Airways is barred from wearing a small cross suspended by a chain around her neck while working by her employer. This news item appeared here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire
/6166746.stmhttp://
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/6166746.stm

The employer explains that other B.A. employees, such as Sikhs with turbans and women with headscarves are not barred from wearing symbols of their faiths. B.A. counters that the cross is only banned because all “jewelry” must be worn beneath clothing and not showing, but since turbans etc. cannot be hidden under clothing they are allowed. They are just following the rules and regulations of the company. If the woman, now on leave, were to accept a position not dealing with the public, she could wear her cross. B.A. says it is not about religious observance, it’s just regulations.

But is it really about religion? It’s only about the wearing of jewelry by uniformed personnel, trinkets which may be worn if concealed. Do you buy that? Okay, let’s say I do too. But then one reads of passengers boarding planes who have been processed by uniformed personnel wearing turbans, bracelets and neck chains sporting Islamic symbols. That sort of "jewelry" is okay?

As an infidel it doesn’t matter whether I am an atheist, christian, jew, Buddhist, or girl scout. (I
am not going to own up toward which I may be leaning, but I will if I ever do make up my mind about a preference for any sect, cult, or even card readers who work out of “psychic fairs“.)
As a matter of fact, whether or not you are an atheist, christian, jew, Buddhist or member of any other major or minor religious group: you are all still infidels too, subject to deliberate, planned extermination by some believers of a major religion.

Is the above incident with the cross on a neck chain a case of political correctness gone mad? No right-thinking person will approve deliberate slighting, racial or ethnic profiling, or denying any religious group to follow the laws of its faith. Sacrifice of virgins? Not if that breaks any federal laws. Sacrifice a domestic animal in a holy rite? To forbid that would be laughable as long as slaughterhouses exist as commercial enterprises. Permit drivers’ licenses to be issued to women who always go about with their faces covered, and whose license photographs are taken with faces covered? Only if our laws are not intended to protect the public. So when is a person forbidden to wear a sign of her faith become a victim of religious prejudice?

There is nothing about this which is simple. If the woman who insists on openly wearing her cross while in uniform while insisting that she does so with an evangelistic purpose a victim of prejudice? After all, christians are not following a religious law by wearing crosses. For a long time crosses worn as jewelry have been just that. Two examples: rock musicians like large crosses in platinum, with platinum chains; they are often sold as tourist kitsch and worn as travel am not going to own up toward which I may be leaning, but I will if I ever do make up my mind about a preference for any sect, cult, or even card readers who work out of “psychic fairs“.)

As a matter of fact, whether or not you are an atheist, christian, jew, Buddhist etc., you are all still infidels too, subject to deliberate, planned extermination. Still, we celebrate ethnic and religious diversity, unless such diversity frightens us in some way. If elements of religious practice threaten our culture, should national security or political correctness take precedence? How should we respond to complaints and threatens that parts of our Western civilization and culture "insult" Islamic culture and religion? Perhaps we should just overlook the small stuff (tiny crosses on neckchains), and worry more about the weaknesses in our domestic security.

Ringing Off The Hook

How have people with famous names found insignificant me in an ordinary town? For the past few weeks I have been honored by telephone calls from prominent people. H0w I deserved to be noticed by the likes of Andrew Cuomo, General Wes Clark, Rudy Giuliani, etc. is a puzzle. But after all this time the thrill is gone. I am reluctant to pick up the phone, lest it be Andy or Rudy again, saying the same old thing, asking me to vote for them or for their friend or their party.

Add that to the many calls from volunteers reminding me to vote and who they think I should vote for. I am overwhelmed by the number of calls interrupting my daily activities, and underwhelmed by their apparent belief that it will do some good. Do these calls ever change anyone's mind about a candidate, or prompt the huge number of people who never vote to go out and vote?

And then, while surfing merrily along I came across this:

http://the-brooks-blog.blogspot.com/2006/11/reminder-for-american-readers.html

where a Brit kindly adds his tuppence to the mix.

I know we shook many Brits up badly by the result of the 2000 US election - almost as badly as most of us were shaken. Quite an optimist, this Brit, hoping to make a difference.

Still I will, as always, be at the voting booth tomorrow, not so much hoping to make a difference, as thinking that we never will if we don't all vote.

I used to feel that the only time our opinions made a difference was when we voted. But after the 2000 election I remain uncertain about that. I'd love to have my mind changed after tomorrow.

HYPOCRITES AND HACKS

I won’t recap any details of the Mark Foley D-MA scandal, which occupied so much newspaper space recently, mostly to spare myself the sordid details. I am only bringing it up because it seems to me that opinions which I hear and read about it are so lame. For example:

***Compared to similar scandals in the past, the Foley case seems minor.

How can it be minor just because Massachusetts Rep. Garry Studds committed similar offenses on a much larger scale in the ‘80s, never apologized, and even accused his accusers of picking on him because of their homophobia. (Perhaps more scandalous than anything else was the fact that Studds was reelected several times after that incident.) Another congressman, Rep. Dan Crane, whose juvenile prey were female, did apologize publicly for his actions.

***Foley has not been convicted of child molestation so technically he is not guilty of child molestation. There is also the question that since pages are teenagers it is not a crime for congressmen to seek sexual contact with them.

The entire congressional page system is flawed and should be scrapped entirely. These kids are not in D.C. for the purpose of being the playthings of dirty old men. They ought not to be appointed by congressmen. A new group should be set up to oversee the day to day life of the pages, security of their living quarters, and to provide counselors they can turn to if some some great patriot of a congressman or congresswoman contacts them inappropriately or bothers them in any way. Of whom should this group be comprised? Damned if I know. I only know there ought not be preachers, evangelists, rabbis, or ministers of any kind overseeing the pages.

***Foley has apologized -- give him credit for that.

Certainly not - no credit to Foley for anything! He apologized for his alcoholism but that is a whole other problem. It was sickening that he blamed alcoholism for his bad behavior. Why, that's not even a good excuse for wifebeating or abuse of any kind. He entered rehab for alcoholism and today or yesterday it was announced that he was extended his stay for continued treatment ... for alcoholism. If they give rehab for hypocricy, all senators and representatives are candidates for treatment. It's hard to imagine that Congress even has an investigation committe, and even one for abuse of ethics. A group which is trained to investigate, say the FBI, should always do all the investigations, especially of coverups.

If I could think of anyone suitable to conduct morals and ethics violations of congressmen I'd name them but I can't.

"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' "
Theodore Roosevelt26th president of US (1858 - 1919)