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.

That’s Not My Culture and Heritage!

I was recently reading a story on FOXNEWS about a group of Muslims in Scotland who were ‘outraged’ by a post card which featured a very cute puppy.  Apparently, this post card was sent to homes showing the small dog as a police recruit to promote the fact that new canine recruits were being trained for the force.  The Muslims were offended (‘outraged’ was the word that was used) because they consider dogs to be ritually unclean.  This reaction was met with the requisite apologies and hand wringing that has come to be common place when anyone says that they are offended by anything, because lord knows we cannot have anyone offended anymore.

I want to say first off that I am done with all of this.  It is time for people to stop reacting to every little thing that every special interest can dig up to bitch about.  Our current reactions only serve to legitimize and encourage more of this activity, but I will pick apart this case for the sheer enjoyment of the exercise.

There is an old adage, “When in Rome, do as the Romans.”  I say this not to imply that a person entering another culture must cast aside his religious beliefs, but I do believe that when you enter that culture, you should not come in swinging your beliefs around like a bat, expecting the existing cultural mores to conform to your own.

I was planning to go to Europe for 24 days when I was in high school (suffice it to say that my grades, and party attitude at the time conspired to have these plans cancelled).  To prepare for the trip, we were required to go to after school classes held by the sponsor.  I remember learning a term in these classes that I had not heard before: ‘Uglo-American.’  The sponsor explained that this term described an American who went abroad and acted as if he owned the place with no regard for the culture or values of his host country.  Even though I did not get to go on that trip, the sad thing was that I found out she was right.  There are indeed a lot of self-obsessed, jingoistic Americans running around out there embarrassing the rest of us.  However, I live in America, and I have seen a relentless parade of foreign nationals come to this country and attempt to impose their cultural mores upon our culture.

Our culture (and I assume Scotland’s also) has a long tradition of dog-loving.  I do not currently own a dog, but I have in the past, and I know they are great companions.  If our culture chooses to promote that fact that we, as a culture, love dogs, then those who choose to live within our culture, especially those who find themselves hypersensitive to cultural issues, should respect this and as Clint Eastwood says, “Shut their faces.”

As far as I know, there is nothing ritually unclean about a photograph in the Muslim religion.  No one brought an actual dog to these peoples houses.  It was a simply photograph.  Do the televisions of these people become ritually unclean every time there is a Dog Chow commercial shown?  Are they similarly outraged?  If an advertisement with a picture of a dog comes in the mail, is it time to call out the Mullah to perform some hocus pocus and purify the mailbox?  I doubt it.

Where do we go from here?  Obviously, the only way to completely avoid possible contact with dogs, their hair, their doo, etc., would be to completely ban dogs from our society.  In doing so, I’m sure these complainers would express their eternal gratitude.  Looking further down their list of mores, I see restrictions against women showing flesh in public.  I guess we need to break out the scarves, ladies.  And, looking behind them, I see a slightly less popular religious group that feels it is ritually unclean for men and women to copulate at all.  Ouch.

Another point is that these dogs are being used as an official means of law enforcement.  Many jurisdictions treat these animals, legally, as official members of law enforcement.  If these Muslims are so easily offended by a picture of a dog, how are they going to feel when they go to an airport, and there is an actual dog there trying to keep everyone safe.  Or, what happens when a particular Muslim is suspected of a crime, and a police dog is called upon to seek evidence of the crime?  I expect this will cause an international incident.

Several decades ago Psychology foisted one of it many lies upon intelligent society.  It is the idea that ‘all feelings are legitimate.’  Hogwash.  There are tons of illegitimate feelings.  I know of a person who has racist feelings.  These are neither legitimate, nor should they be allowed to stand as if they are when they are voiced.  Some people have perverted feelings.  These are not legitimate.  Some have murderous feelings which are also bad.  And, others carry with them a hypersensitivity and a myopic cultural outlook which leaves no room for the culture of another.  This is not legitimate either.

I believe there are three culprits at the root of this problem.  The first is a group of minorities (I am not using this term in a racial sense) with a licentious attitude that motivates them to bitch about anything and everything they see.  The second is a willing media that promotes a sense of political correctness and cultural relativism about every issue regardless of its ridiculousness.  And third, is a silent majority that continues to take it in the shorts every time a group whines about anything. 

It is time for the majority to start saying ‘So what!,’ and ‘Shut your face!’  It is time for the media to become more discerning and respectful of all cultures even that of the majority.  And, it is time for these small whiny groups to grow up and realize that they have to subject themselves to the same sort of tolerance that they expect others to show them.