Does the Constitution Say Anything About Grooming Issues?

There are several reasons that it would be good to go back to the 1950s.  One of these involves grooming issues.  Back then, a man wore his hair short, the only way his barber knew how to cut it.  Of course, there was the occasional ‘greaser,’ but even those guys had nice hair by today’s standards.

It was the 60s and hippies that destroyed hair in America.  The 70s were just an extension of the 60s and in the 80s hairstyles were just a mistake.  It took us until the end of the 1980’s and the introduction of the show “Friends” to finally get a handle on hairstyles once again.

In the last few years, for the most part hairstyles have improved, except in one area, the dreadlock.  Dreadlocks are way out of hand.  This phenomenon seems to have come out of the sports world, and proliferated itself on the heels of the institution of the ‘Emmitt Smith Rule’ in which players were no longer allowed to remove their helmets in the field of play.

Players like Troy Polamalu have started to wear dreadlocks so long that they come out of their helmets and go significantly down their backs.  The problem is that the league did not deal with this issue early on.  There are several reasons for the league to outlaw this nonsense:

  1. It’s unsightly.  It just looks bad.
  2. It’s not part of the uniform.  In a league where you can be fined for not wearing your socks in the correct manner during a game, It seems to be a little hypocritical to allow a player to wear his hair so long that neither the player’s number nor his name can be seen clearly.
  3. It is either dangerous or unfair.  I believe that it is dangerous to tackle these players by the hair (though it could serve as an effective deterrent).  It could easily break a neck, but on the other hand, it is unfair to protect these players against being tackled by their hair as it covers their whole back in some cases.  There was actually a flag thrown for unsportsmanlike conduct in a Cowboys/Steelers game when Polamalu was tackled in this manner after an interception.

Of course, this is all bogus, and the league will have to deal with it eventually.  Now, the player’s union has become involved in support of the players who want ridiculously long hair, and the league has allowed the argument to be changed into a racial issue.  This will make it much harder to deal with.

A similar subject occurred this week when a court allowed a Rastafarian to sue his employer, Jiffy Lube over a new policy that required employees to be clean-shaven.  He is suing on religious grounds.  I do not see how this lawsuit (which was dismissed once already) can be allowed to go forward.  There is no inherent right to dress the way you want to in the workplace.  Many jobs require their employees to wear uniforms, and most county health departments will not allow employees at restaurants to have facial hair.  What happens when a Muslim woman claims that she must wear a head-covering in her job at a bank, for instance?  Or, what if some kooky religion that bans clothing comes along?  Will we then be forced to employee a naked nurse (I actually support this in some cases)?  The implications are huge, and as we all know, in the civil courts in America precedent is everything.  Once Pandora gets out of this box, we are all in trouble.

In closing, Get A Haircut!

Advertisements

Christian Mobs Terrorize Europe!

Dateline Bolzano, Italy:

 

For the past 48 hours mobs of Christians have flooded the streets of most of Italy’s cities and towns burning frogs and artists in effigy, as a reaction to the Pope’s condemnation of a piece of art depicting a crucified frog.  Several innocent and uninvolved people have been caught up in the mob violence and killed.  Unfortunately people wearing smocks, berets, and the color green have been unmercifully attacked and killed by the bloodthirsty bands of angry churchgoers.  By this time, sympathetic incidences of violence and organized marches have spread to cities all over Europe.  The news arm of Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), the Catholic cable station, is doing everything it can to slant the coverage of this event in a way as to encourage more violence, and make the people in the mobs look like the real victims.

Of course, it has all had an impact.  The governments of Belgian and Demark have banned art in general and condemned the artist Martin Kippenberger, even though he is already dead.  French authorities have closed the Louvre, and British legislators are reviewing the Old Testament and examining the possibilities of codifying the laws found in the Pentateuch.  Finally, laws suits claiming violations of Canada’s hate crimes laws have been filed by Catholics against artists and museums all over Canada.

The Pope seemed a little more sanguine as he said of the artist, “He’s dead now, I’ve got it handled.”

 

This was a fun little bit of satire to write, though it is not my usual style.  The point is that the Christians and Catholics of Europe did not act in this manner.  I wonder what would have happened if the artist had sculpted a frog and called it Muhammad.  Set aside the imagery of the cross.  Muslims would have gone crazy.  See the Danish cartoons if you need evidence. 

There is an interesting dichotomy here.  Muslims seem to have unreasonably violent reactions to these matters, but are appeased by progressives who do so under the guise of tolerance and fighting hate crimes.  While, when the same thing (or worse) is done to icons that the Christian religion deems as holy, the Christians appropriately protest them.  These peaceful admonitions and protests are met by the same progressives with disdain and snickering.  What a bunch of hypocrites.

Multiculturalism is an Oxymoron

For some time now, I have been confused by multiculturalism as it is expressed in general attitudes toward the Muslim religion.  The progressive push for tolerance for a religion that preaches total intolerance has confused me.  This is only exacerbated by progressive intolerance toward Christianity.  I could spend hours trying to organize my thoughts on this subject, and then finding facts to back up my opinions, but why should I when someone else has already done it (and, much better than I could do myself)?  With this being said, I refer you to one of the best articles that I have read in a while.  I only wish there was a media willing to objectively deal with the fears, questions and issues raised by its author. 

The Rushdie Rules Apply

Sherry Jones, author of Jewel of Medina was recently informed by her publisher, Random House, that her book, which was ready for release, would be ‘postponed indefinitely’ because it ‘might be offensive to some Muslims’ and ‘could invite acts of violence by a radical segment.’

I was surprised last night when I was talking to e friend, and he defended Random House by saying that he thought they were doing nothing wrong.  The more I thought about it, the more I disagreed with him.

My friend claimed that the publisher was doing the right thing by going ahead and paying her the $100,000 advance and allowing her to seek another publisher.  I don’t see it that way.  They had to pay her the advance, because they were contractually obligated to do so.  They let her leave to keep her from suing the pants off of them.  But, they did her wrong when they let it go so long before canceling the book, and then saying that their reason was that it ‘might be offensive to some Muslims’ and ‘could invite acts of violence by a radical segment.’  By doing so, they have put her in the unenviable position of being accused publicly of producing a book that is offensive to Muslims before it is even released.  Other publishing houses will have increased pressure from Muslim groups that will only be fed by the words used by her publisher.  She has also been put in danger by these same inflammatory words.  Some might say that this was great for her, and she would have never gotten this kind of publicity if they had simply released the book.  Funny, the editors at Random House did not see it that way for themselves.  She claims that she never intended to offend anyone with the book, but by their actions, her publishing company has placed her in a no win situation with the book.

I looked at the excerpts from the book, and I think it is safe to say that the content and tone of the book is no different than that of the DA  Vinci Code, another book published by Random House.  If anything, it is much less offensive.  Jones’ book, chronicles the marriage and life of Muhammad’s bride A’isha.  In the author’s own words, “My book is a respectful portrayal of Islam, of A’isha, of Muhammad. And anyone who reads it with [an] open mind will come away with an understanding of Islam as a peaceful religion.”  She has attempted to write a work of historical fiction that is a positive portrayal of Muslims.

In Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code, the author uses the story of Jesus to develop the idea that he had a daughter who moved to France and continued his (Jesus’) bloodline.  In this case, the author actually claimed that his work of fiction was based in truth (though this has been proven to be an untrue statement).  This book definitely did outrage people in the Christian community, especially Catholics.  The theological implications in the plot of the book were obvious, and damaging to the Christian religion.  Unlike the case with Jones’ book, however, Random House did not pull the book from production.  In fact, they rolled up the Brinks truck for this blockbuster, made a movie and a produced Brown’s sequel.

The double standard is clear and leads to only two possible conclusions.  Either the publishers at Random House are more sympathetic to the Muslim religion than they are to Christianity, or they are pissing on the great journalistic tradition of the free press that the greatness of the United States has provided them with by cowardly knuckling under to threats of violence by a bunch of religious thugs.  I suspect it is a lot of both.

Shame on Random House for their cowardly ways.  It is simply another example of the press self-editing simply because they are afraid to offend Muslims or are afraid of Muslim retaliation.  Random House has a long history of publishing books that are offensive to the Christian religion (see The Golden Compass or How Jesus Became a Christian for good examples).  They need to be more consistent.  The intellectual hand-down that is continually provided by people who defend their violent ways is tiresome, and reveals the truth that these progressive people do not believe that Muslims are on the same plain with them or Christians because they do not hold them to the same standards.

Shame also on the Muslim religion that continues its thuggish attempts to restrict the press.  It’s time for them to start winning over the hearts and minds of people they do not agree with like other religions do, rather than killing people.  It took Christianity a long time to get this point.  It’s time for the leaders of Islam to grow up, take charge of their religion, and curb the violent factions therein.