St. Paul City Council hostile to Pagans

Religious activists were outraged today after the St. Paul City Council removed a stuffed rabbit, colored eggs and a sign saying “Happy Easter” from its offices. “This is blatant religious discrimination and another blow against diversity,” said Dru Idish, spokeswoman for People Against God and Nuance (PAGAN), who’s organization staged a demonstration outside City Hall. “I guess the City Council thinks it’s okay to offend Pagans because we usually don’t go around chopping people’s heads off, but we’re simply not going to take it anymore.”

Idish explained that Easter is named after Eastre, or Eostre, the Saxon goddess of dawn, spring and fertility whose symbols are the hare and the egg. “Dyed eggs have been used as part of pagan rituals since the dawn of history in the Near Eastern civilizations, yet the City Council appears to have no regard for history or tradition, or even community standards which have long honored the Easter Bunny,” Idish said.

Idish and her group appeared to have at least one officially sympathetic ear as City Council member Dave Thune said “it’s a shame” to remove the items. “This has just gone too far,” he said. “We can’t celebrate spring with bunnies and fake grass?* Still, I guess it’s better to nip this in the bud before we have someone use tobacco plants in an Independence Day display.”

When asked if other, more mainstream, religions might also identify with the significance of rebirth and renewal, Idish reacted strongly. “Jesus Christ, let them get their own day,” she said.

* Actual quote.

The right to remain silent is greatly underutilized

Laura Billings’ column in today’s St. Paul Pioneer Press suggests that she has as much trouble hearing the truth as Dean Johnson has in telling it — and that trying to hold public officials and employees accountable for statements they make while engaged in public business somehow violates their privacy. An excerpt:

Consider the pastor from Willmar who clipped a tape recorder to his backpack at a ministerial meeting with Senate majority leader Dean Johnson about the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The intent, the pastor told the Star Tribune, “was a matter of me wanting to be able to, if I needed to, quote Sen. Johnson – accurately and in context.” He never told Johnson about the recording device. He then handed the tape over to an advocacy group in favor of the ban.

Sen. Johnson’s assertion that he had Minnesota justices’ assurances they wouldn’t touch existing defense-of-marriage legislation was truly dumb. It was the sort of sin of pride we’ve seen before from politicians, over-promising to his constituent base and making himself seem more almighty than he really is. His remarks deserved censure, and got them.

Billings appears to have a desire, like Johnson, to deny what we’ve heard with our own ears in Johnson’s and, later in her column, in Jay Bennish’s cases. Johnson’s intent wasn’t to make himself appear better to his friends; he was lying to advance his political strategy and that of his party. Similarly, Jay Bennish wasn’t playing Devil’s advocate, his statements followed his established pattern and weren’t just a provocative sampling taken out of context. The tapes in both cases — despite Billings’ hopes and claims or Johnson’s mealy-mouthed illuminations — prove it. In fact, for both Johnson and Bennish, their past behavior is what caused people to decide that somebody ought to try to get their statements on record.

Now if the people who went to all the effort and risked ridicule to bring these things to light had been courageous New York Times journalists then I’m sure Billings would be celebrating their commitment to truth. Instead:

Yet we’ve seen little reproof for the pastor, who has looked into his own heart and found himself to be without sin. “In everybody’s life there is a moment when you have to choose,” he told the Strib. “You count the cost and then you step out. For me, that was this time.”

I guess I missed the part of the Bible where God says it’s cool to secretly record fellow Christians. Like most things we argue about nowadays, it’s probably in Leviticus.

Lawmakers now should be on notice that everything they say, even to a roomful of ministers, can and will be used against them. Teachers and professors have been learning the same lesson.

Why should a roomful of ministers be expected to keep quiet about a discussion of public policy? They weren’t there to hear confession or to provide private spiritual counsel. In fact, if there was any group I’d expect to call attention to unethical behavior I’d hope it would be ministers. And is Billings ultimately suggesting that the public that pays the salaries of its representatives and teachers now has to read these people their rights before any public business is conducted, warning them that the things they say may be held against them in the court of public opinion?

You know, I couldn’t find anything in Leviticus about not taping others, but chapter 19, verse 11 does say “Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.” Whatever sin Billings may think that pastor is guilty of, it certainly isn’t bearing false witness. Or perhaps the pastor was simply following the instructions of Jesus in Matthew 10:27 when he said, “What I tell you now in the darkness, shout abroad when daybreak comes. What I whisper in your ears, shout from the housetops for all to hear!” He certainly has the right to say to Johnson and Billings the words from Job 15:6, “Your own mouth condemns you, and not I; yes, your own lips testify against you.”

I was certainly reminded of the references in Job 12:22 and Daniel 2:22 about things that are done in darkness being brought to light. As for Dean Johnson, I know there’s one scripture he’s for sure going to remember from all of this and that is James 3:5:

“Even so the tongue is a little member and boasts great things. See how great a forest a little fire kindles!”

A public school finds religion; can you guess which?

Portia Rediscovered was on this story before I was, even though its happening in my backyard, and challenged me to respond.

The Art of Compromise
BY DOUG BELDEN, Pioneer Press

As violent protests over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad continue around the world, a St. Paul charter school is quietly negotiating the delicate question of how to teach art to Muslims.

Any depiction of God and his prophets is considered offensive under Islam, and disrespectful representations are even worse, as the recent worldwide outrage over the Danish cartoons has shown. But some Muslims also refrain from producing images of ordinary human beings and animals, citing Islamic teaching.

That presented a challenge for Higher Ground Academy, a K-12 school just west of Central High School on Marshall Avenue that has about 450 students. About 70 percent of them are Muslim immigrants from eastern Africa.

Executive Director Bill Wilson said he had concerns for some time about how to reconcile the school’s art curriculum with the views of Muslim families, but the departure of the art teacher at the end of last school year gave him a window to act.

This fall, he hired ArtStart, a St. Paul-based nonprofit organization, to offer more options for about 150 kindergartners through second-graders, including visual arts and drumming. But parents were still upset that their children were drawing figures, Wilson said, and some pulled their children out of art class altogether.

Wilson then sat down with teacher and parent liaison Abdirahman Sheikh Omar Ahmad, who also is the imam at an Islamic center in Minneapolis, to work with ArtStart in determining how to meet state standards without running afoul of Muslim doctrine.

“We said, ‘Look, we can do better than this,'” Wilson said.

This is a very progressive approach by the school, reaching out to the parents who, though the school is a public charter school, are its “customers”. They are trying to find a way to educate the children while being sensitive to the majority’s religious tradition.

Of course, no such accomodation would be available to Christian parents who objected to, say, the sex-ed curriculum or to “Heather Has Two Mommies” being on the elementary library shelf. And heaven, or someone, forbid that those two-weeks off in the middle of winter be called “Christmas break”, even if 70% of students are from nominally Christian families because that would be insensitive to the non-Christian minority. There’s no word in the newspaper story about how the new art curriculum is being received by that school’s non-Muslim minority.

Out the window right away went masks, puppets and that classic of elementary school art class, the self-portrait, said Sara Langworthy, an artist with ArtStart. Revamping the curriculum “definitely requires stepping outside of the normal instincts that you fall back on,” she said.

In their place came nature scenes and geometric forms and patterns, said Carol Sirrine, ArtStart’s executive director. This week, the class was cutting out shapes to make into cardboard pouches. Another project involved taking photographs and mapping the neighborhood around the school.

The conversation about what is appropriate is still open.
In a meeting this week, Langworthy asked Ahmad whether the students can do silhouettes of hands. That’s fine, he said.

Ahmad’s involvement has put many parents’ minds at ease, said Said Jama, father of kindergartner Suhyr Ali Jama. Wilson said Muslim enrollment in art has rebounded since the changes were introduced.
Langworthy said she and fellow teacher Katie Tuma don’t police what the students draw, but they do have conversations with students who are drawing figures to make sure it’s really OK.

I’m in favor of parents having the biggest say in their childrens’ education, and I admire these parents’ resolve and ability to get the school to relent. I certainly know many parents, and of parent groups, who’s concerns have been dismissed or who have found themselves being lectured for their supposed narrow-mindedness. The schools don’t seem that concerned about the number of children who’s parents ask that they be withdrawn from an offensive class, though they do demonstrate a tendency to be very forgetful in notifying the parents in advance when these insensitive days are scheduled, even when they’ve agreed to do so.

At Higher Ground, Wilson said he plans to use ArtStart — which is typically hired for one- or two-week residencies rather than long-term relationships with schools — to expand the art curriculum to grades three through five this fall. And he said once the program is fine-tuned, “we’d like to be able to export this” to any school that is interested.

Wilson said Higher Ground has experience in mediating cultural conflicts because of tensions that have arisen between its majority African population and the rest of the student body, almost all of whom are African American. Certain forms of hip-hop dance performed by African-American students at school talent shows are offensive to some Muslim students, for example, but “we’ve always accommodated that with lots of discussion,” Wilson said.

Principals, faculty and coaches are barred from leading prayer at public schools and even individual students are restricted from offering their own prayers at graduation commencements or school programs — all because of the misguided perception that doing so demonstrates governmental establishment of a particular religion. Somehow, developing and promoting this program isn’t a problem, however, and the ACLU is not pouring fire and brimstone down on the school district.

It may surprise some that I don’t have a big problem with Higher Ground adapting its curriculum to reflect the values of its population, especially since charter schools are supposed to be able to give administrators an opportunity to try different things. It is interesting to me, however, that such creativity is appauded regarding Islam, and censured if it concerns Christianity.

Further, it’s not as if I have a direct stake in this since we avoid such confounding applications by home educating our children, and that’s a topic I hope to address tomorrow.

An ethical challenge

Great post from Andy at Residual Forces yesterday, deboning the celebration of those hailing the decisions of three Californian anesthesiologists who refused to execute a convicted murderer and rapist on ethical grounds.

These doctors in California who have suddenly gotten ethics and won’t assist with the Death Penalty may be the best example of hypocrisy ever.

Here we have Legislatures demanding that Doctors prescribe the morning after abortion pills, against their will.

That Walmart must sell the Morning After abortion pill against their will.

The Supreme Court says that Doctors in Oregon can euthanize people. (That means assisting them to die)

Abortion are considered a medical procedure worthy of public financing.

Partial birth abortion is still acceptable round most parts.

But these doctors in Cali won’t help rid the world of a convicted x murderer and rapist because of their ethics.

Personally, I may not agree with the decisions these anesthesiologists made, but I respect their right to do so. I endorse so-called “conscience clauses”. And as Andy points out, those who are happy by these particular actions might not be so supportive in other circumstances.

If they can stand up to a court order and refuse this, can other doctors refuse court orders and laws and protect other forms of life? Can doctors and pharmacists refuse to abort the unborn now? Will the ethics of every doctor be tolerated now?

On a related topic, go back and check out this classic from Craig Westover.

I hear you; I just haven’t heard enough

Farheen Hakeem, 30, the Green Party candidate for mayor of Minneapolis, pointed out the large number of children at the rally who attend Twin Cities-area schools and said, “We are as much a part of society here as anywhere else in the world. We demand to be heard.”

That was from one of the speakers at Sunday’s peaceful (and isn’t that front page news) Muslim rally in Minneapolis to protest the publication of caricatures of the prophet Mohammed. To their credit, many of those in attendance called for people of different faiths to live in peace, which might be construed as an apparent but gentle rebuke of the more violent Muslims who seem to have no quibble with the caricature they’re making of their “religion of peace”.

For Imani Jaafar-Mohammed, the sight of more than 1,000 Minnesota Muslims packed into a south Minneapolis gym Sunday for a noisy, emotional rally was exhilarating.

“We are living here among people who don’t know anything about us, and we have come together to educate them peacefully,” the 26-year-old activist and Woodbury attorney told the crowd, which erupted into passionate, in some quarters tearful, chants of “Peace! No more violence!” and “Allah-u-Akbar!” (God is great!)

OK, you’ve got my attention, educate me. In particular, tell me what your faith teaches about the character of God and whether grace, mercy and forgiveness are Godly traits mankind is supposed to emulate. Tell me if you believe it is easy to love those who love you, but more sacred to love your enemies or those who persecute you. And while you’re at it, answer these questions for me:

  1. What do you really think of the efforts this country and other western countries made on behalf of your Muslim brothers in Bosnia?
  2. If insulting God is a capital offense, why does God need men to carry it out?
  3. If this behavior is required by your religion, why do your brothers kill people who had nothing to do with that insult, in a part of the world that had no connection to the affront?
  4. Do you condemn or condone this behavior?
  5. Why do you rally now to protest those cartoons, but not earlier to protest the things done in the name of your faith?

Lest this be a one-sided conversation, permit me to offer some information that you might not know. For example, one of the speakers at the protest, Hassan Mohamud, an imam and director of the Islamic Law Institute at the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, had this to say:

“We want to show solidarity with every Muslim feeling pain,” Mohamud told the crowd. “We want the U.S. government to take a position on this matter.”

You see, the U.S. government already has taken a position on this matter, more than 200 years ago when our Constitution was written. It’s the reason why you were able to hold your protest last Sunday with the expectation that the police not only wouldn’t attack you, but that they’d protect you. One last question: could I expect the same respect in downtown Teheran, or Riyadh, or in Nigeria?

No way to treat a Lady: is The View anti-Dame?

Three network news and talk shows, including the all-woman show, The View, may have declined to interview Dame Judi Dench because she was too old. At least, that is the claim of Harvey Weinstein, co-founder of Miramax Films and head of the company distributing “Mrs. Henderson Presents”, for which Dench received an Oscar nomination earlier this week.

NEW YORK (AP) — Harvey Weinstein says Judi Dench was snubbed by three network talk shows because of her age while promoting “Mrs. Henderson Presents,” according to New York magazine.

Dench, 71, was nominated Tuesday for an Oscar for her performance in the film, which was distributed by Weinstein’s new production company, The Weinstein Co.

Weinstein, who co-founded Miramax Films, says Dench was turned down for interviews by NBC’s “Today” show and ABC’s “Good Morning America” and “The View.”

“They said that she didn’t fit their demographics,” the outspoken movie mogul tells the magazine in this week’s issue.

This could be a calculated claim on Weinstein’s part to create more buzz about the film, and the full text of the above article includes statements from The Today Show, Good Morning America and The View disputing (somewhat nervously) that age is the reason they declined opportunities to interview the actress who previously won an Oscar for Shakespeare in Love.

Would The View turn it’s tailored back on an older woman? You wouldn’t think so, not with Barbara Walters (who’s 40+ years in the business would mathematically make her much closer to Dame Judi than the target demographic) as co-host, co-owner and co-executive producer. If so, however, this is almost cosmically laughable. Surely there must have been some other reason? Perhaps the ladies were trying to hold a space open for James Frey.

Who read the book to them?

Free-speech-hating “liberals” too timid to get out and throw salad dressing or Oreo cookies at conservative speakers, or with chests too scrawny to try to shout down Anne Coulter in person, have found a new way to demonstrate that they wouldn’t understand irony if Wile E. Coyote dropped it on their heads: flood the Amazon reader-reviews section in an effort to drown out Kate O’Beirne’s book, Women Who Make the World Worse.

Captain Ed (Lefties Against Free Speech and Dialogue) and Michelle Malkin (The Amazon.com Cesspool) have covered the campaign to try to bring down the ratings of the book with fustian vitriol and a series of 1-star ratings. While some scorn has been directed toward Amazon for allowing such a tactic, with blame being laid at Jeff Bezos’ two lefty feet, I see Amazon’s tolerance (or encouragement) of this practice as being motivated by marketing more than politics.

The conservative response has already appeared on the page with several positive reviews of the book now on top of the queue that also take a few swipes at the previous, negative reviews. (No doubt to be countered with “Look, I’m being repressed!” reactions). Although it’s a new-age company, Amazon embraces the age old maxim, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.” I’m certain that as displeased as Amazon execs might be with the content of the book, they’re going to be happy with the money conservatives send in to buy it … unless, of course you choose to show your support by buying it from someone else (let your conscience be your guide).

I’ll admit my headline for this post is a cheap shot (I bought it as part of a twelve-pack for a dollar at Learned Foot’s garage sale), because these “reviewers” obviously must be able to read. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve read the book itself; it could just mean they can read someone else’s talking points. It most certainly shows, however, that what is in the book frightens them and makes them afraid of it’s influence. Perhaps they’ve also read their C.S. Lewis: “A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.”

Regardless, the campaign has the appearance, and all the subtlety, of a flock of ducks quacking up a storm in the hopes that you won’t notice the swan in their midst.

Democrats say, “Your Mommy…”

Not content to wait until children enter public school to begin their political slandering and unsubtle brainwashing, those kindly Democrats have come up with an enchanting children’s book to explain what otherwise seems incomprehensible: why someone would be a Democrat.

At least, I think it’s a children’s book; it might be a field manual for Howard Dean’s ground forces.

(HT: Gordon at Dog Snot Diaries.)

The web-site for the book describes its purpose:

Why Mommy is a Democrat brings to life the core values of the Democratic party in ways that young children will easily understand and thoroughly enjoy. Using plain and non-judgmental language, along with warm and whimsical illustrations, this colorful 28-page paperback depicts the Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace and concern for the well-being of others. It’s a great way for parents to gently communicate their commitment to these principles and explain their support for the party.

Aww, how sweet. But the very next two paragraphs, however, say (boldface emphasis mine):

Why Mommy is a Democrat may look like a traditional children’s book, but it definitely isn’t just for children. With numerous subtle (and not-so-subtle) satirical swipes at the Bush administration and the Republican party (in plain and non-judgmental language, of course), Why Mommy will appeal to Democrats of all ages!

Finally, a portion of the profits (such language!) will be donated to Democratic candidates and party organizations, so your purchase will help make an immediate difference!

Sample pages from the book include statements and illustrations such as:

“Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does.” (Illustration of friendly squirrels playing and sharing while well-dressed people walk by and turn their noses up at someone begging.)

“Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like Mommy does.” (Illustration of Mommy directing children away from an elephant going by).

“Democrats make sure children can go to school, just like Mommy does.” (Illustration of mommy packing backpacks for her children while rich people in the background stand with their daughter in front of a building that says ‘Admission $160,000’).

Since Democrats are so good and kind and want children to know the truth, and because they feel so strongly about their core values, I’m certain that the other pages in the book contain the following statements (you’ll have to think up the illustrations yourself):

  • Democrats think Mommy had the right to kill you before you were born, just like Mommy does.
  • Democrats say name-calling is all right, just like Mommy does.
  • Democrats don’t want you to make decisions for yourself, just like Mommy does.
  • Democrats think it’s more important to make sure the teacher’s union is protected than to make sure you get a good education, just like Mommy does.
  • Democrats think you don’t need a Daddy, just like Mommy does.
  • Democrats make sure that bullies are encouraged, just like Mommy does.
  • Democrats want you to do as they say, not as they do, just like Mommy does.
  • Democrats think people from other places have just as much right to play in your backyard as you do, just like Mommy does.
  • Democrats think you will always need a nanny, no matter how old you are, just like Mommy does.

Of course, Mommy doesn’t really think and do these things. If she did she might be arrested for child abuse.

Yes, Mommy, I know, I’m not being very nice – but they started it!

Update:

David at Our House and Fuzzy Nietsche at Nihilist in Golf Pants are on the story as well. Mommy’s got some ‘splainin to do.

A million little enablers

I’ve never bought into the whole “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” thing or the tenets of our therapeutic culture where everyone’s a victim (which means, of course, that everyone must also be a victimizer). Yes, I’ve been married for 18 years and live in a house full of women so I do know that males and females think differently but I attribute most of the public conversation around this kind of thinking to have more to do with capitalism than revelation (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

Sometimes, however, you’ve got to wonder. I’ve had a few chuckles over the flap surrounding James Frey’s supposed autobiographical bestseller “A Million Little Pieces” that was mid-wifed into the stratosphere by Oprah Winfrey and her book club. By all accounts (I’ve not read it, nor do I have plans to do so), the book is a spell-binding read of personal degradation, exploitation of others and reclamation. The scandal, according to The Smoking Gun, is that Frey’s account appears to have more in common with the scripts of the “daytime dramas” flanking Oprah’s show than real life, though it may have exploited a couple of real-life tragedies in the process to add authenticity and pathos.

My schadenfreude at Oprah’s empire being taken in is perhaps my own weakness, but I really see Frey as nothing more than the latest in the literary line that includes Clifford Irving, Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair. It was interesting that he could cause such a sensation, but an important lesson (I thought) that the seeds of his own exposure were intrinsic in his success. I figured there’d be a splashy comeuppance once Oprah exacted her revenge, but instead (as of today) she’s standing by her man.

That surprised me, but not as much as walking into our office breakroom and hearing two women I consider to be fairly sharp discussing – in heart-rending terms – the latest trials and challenges now facing “James” as a result of all of this. I thought they’d start to rip him apart, but they were supportive of him and closed ranks when I volunteered an unsolicited, incredulous “Oh come on,” type of comment.

Amazing, but thank God (really, it is a touch of the Divine) that there’s something in the female wiring that causes them to want to see, embrace or hope for the good in the scruffiest of characters or else 98% of us guys would never stand a chance. Besides that revelation I also got a glimpse of what it’s like for the ladies to walk into the breakroom and hear us guys talking about this quarterback or that pitcher and how this just might be the season when he puts it all together.

Banning Christ from Christianity

This week’s Faith and Values section of the StarTribune focuses on the annual Muslim pilgrimmage to Mecca and with a focus on Minnesotan Muslims who are participating. It’s a relevant topic given the time of year and a good effort to find a local angle to the hajj. Almost lost in the online version of the section is another “hodge”, an article by Sharon Hodge in response to the U.S. military telling its Christian chaplains not to pray in the name of Jesus in public prayers (the article is well displayed in the print version).

Hodge’s take is a brief, well-written illumination of the absurdity of this policy in the name of political correctness and an excellent, concise testimony.

Why? Because praying in the name of Jesus is not form or fashion, but essence. It is a fundamental function of the faith itself that transcends religion and rests on relationship. Just one of many scriptures on the topic illuminates why: “There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Jesus left his home in heaven to bridge the chasm of sin that separated me from God. He suffered betrayal, denial, scourging and crucifixion for my sake. He stretched his battered body across that great divide so I could cross to the other side. There, covered in his blood, I am able to stand in the presence of almighty God: rescued, redeemed and reconciled. Even now, the resurrected Christ is my intercessor, my advocate with the father. It is by Jesus’ stripes I am healed, by his sacrifice I am saved. Jesus was the only one able and willing to do this, for me personally and for mankind.

What really made me smile, however, was getting to the end of the article and discovering that Hodge is a features copy editor for the Strib. We really are everywhere!

From what I’ve read about this topic, my understanding is that the military’s interest in this issue is more to avoid controversy than squelch Christianity per se as the restriction is on using “sectarian” prayers in public settings, not on praying with or counseling individuals. Nothing new here, there were people that told even Jesus to “tone it down.” Of course, even having the policy at all is problematic because it inevitably leads to ever more restrictive interpretation to “be safe”. (That this is an issue at all is because of this type of thinking being applied to the establishment clause of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”)

No wonder scripture says that that heathen rage and God laughs at their vain thinking (Psalms 2:1, 4)!