Thursday, June 30, 2005
Monotheism is not a religion
I wonder why I don't terribly object to things like "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and "In God We Trust" on the currency, or the iconic Ten Commandments, as much as I do the public creche, or even the public reindeer. (The for-purpose Kansas Ten Commandments, or the 1950s addition to the Pledge of Allegiance, occupy an intermediate position in my mind.)
I'm wondering if it is because nobody has ever been forcibly converted to Monotheism. (Not that nobody has ever been forcibly converted to a putatively monotheist religion, but when that happens those holding the force use it, the fact that those they are forcing are already monotheistic, or would convert to a different monotheistic religion, wouldn't satisfy those holding the force.) So generic, bland, somewhat politically correct Monotheism doesn't bring to mind bad acts.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Monday, June 27, 2005
Public Displays of the Ten Commandments
I haven't read today's decisions yet. I am somewhat religious, I am not Protestant. I don't know what kind of monument I'd feel comfortable with to say "Law is good. Even imperfect laws, and in some societies even laws that lack Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, are better than anarchy. Regardless of how we got the Ten Commandments, their mythos, including the iconic two tablets, are the foundation of the earliest in the chain of bodies of law that got us where are secular law is today."
I suppose I'd be less comfortable with busts of Isaac Newton if there were people today who were actively trying to kill other people for heretically believing that Relativity better describes the Universe than does Newtonian mechanics.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Betsy Hart's divorce
Betsy Hart is more perfect than I am. Her four children behave
better than my children. She is a better housewife than my
wife is. Her family and marriage is better than mine is.
In 2002 she wrote
the act of staying together, of persevering, in and of itself often ended up producing a happy marriage. Now that's connection. Another "connection" is understanding that marriage is about more than any two people. (Which means, for starters, that those two people don't have the right to pursue a fleeting notion of happiness at the expense of a child or spouse.)Now, as with Ann Landers three decades ago, her husband has left her. <Nelson Muntz>Ha Ha</Nelson Muntz>
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Salem's `Bewitched' statue
BostonHerald.com - Local/ Regional News: Salem's `Bewitched' statue ready for closeup
The statue is one of five that TV Land has had installed across the country "to honor people, places and moments from our TV heritage".
As popular as the TV show was, some residents of Salem are less than thrilled that Samantha is getting a prominent place in the city. During the 1692 witchcraft hysteria, 19 men and women were executed.If Salem, all of Salem, treated the event solemnly, they'd have a leg to stand on. This is the city with Halloween as its national holiday, that celebrates modern witches, and whose witch museum is touristy kitsch. (Better to visit the House of Seven Gables, Salem Willows, or Pickering Wharf.) In any case, what is the connection between the witches of folklore, like in MacBeth, turning people into frogs, and modern practitioners of wicca? So much of what I hear is "No, that is not us at all" -- so why share the name?
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Friday, June 17, 2005
If not now, when?
innw?
Rabbi Hillel said
If I am not for myself, then who will be, but if I am only for my self, what am I? And if not now, when?So why is it that innw? (If not now, when?) pulls up a Frito-Lay site advertising Doritos?
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Handicap stalls in public bathrooms (Dear Abby)
Dear Abby on uExpress
DEAR ABBY: A few months ago, I was out shopping when I got the urge to use the washroom. When I got there, the line was out the door. There was about a 10-minute wait.
As I finally neared the stall, the woman ahead of me in line began to bounce. I could empathize. But right before a stall became available, a woman in a wheelchair rolled in and parked next to us. (Of course, the handicap stall was the next one available.)
The person ahead of me began to walk forward, but the woman in the wheelchair became loud and belligerent about being handicapped, and claimed the stall. The woman in front of me and I just looked at each other -- and then she deferred to the individual in the wheelchair.
Please set me straight, Abby. Should a handicapped individual take precedence over a stall when the washroom line is long? -- MORALLY CONFUSED IN JOLIET, ILL.
DEAR CONFUSED: I'm overjoyed to set you straight. Handicapped stalls are set aside for people with disabilities to use because their wheelchairs will not fit into a regular stall. Without question, the person with the physical disability should have access to it first. Absolutely!
BULLSHIT
Comments:
I have to agree with you. I could understand if the wheelchair lady had waited in line too, but she didn't.
I'm hoping to express my disagreement with Dear Abby more eloquently, but I figured I'd stick this up as Published rather than Draft since I haven't posted in a bit.
You don't leave your car in the Handicap spot because you might not be there to move it when somebody who "needs" it needs it. (I've been told by guards to move on when waiting in a car in such a spot, and in those cases I usually obey and wait in the traffic lane.) Most of the time there are other spots available, but less convenient.
But the handicap-accessible bathroom stall, or the Cripple Stool as Larry the Cable Guy calls it, is just a regular stall with a wider door and such.
If there are two open stalls and a handicapped individual will need one before you're going to be done, then you're obliged to use the less accessible stall. Otherwise, they've got no greater claim or entitlement than anybody else. (An argument could be made that they have less, but we're still too socialistic for that.)
Accomodations have been made, but that doesn't equal entitlement. If the aisles in a library are made wider, and the shelves lower, so that some people who were physically unable to use the library are now able to do so, these people have no more claim to the library than any other patron.
If every stall in the library in the Dear Abby situation were handicap-accessible, the handicapped individual wouldn't have the right to go to the head of the line.
Post a Comment
You don't leave your car in the Handicap spot because you might not be there to move it when somebody who "needs" it needs it. (I've been told by guards to move on when waiting in a car in such a spot, and in those cases I usually obey and wait in the traffic lane.) Most of the time there are other spots available, but less convenient.
But the handicap-accessible bathroom stall, or the Cripple Stool as Larry the Cable Guy calls it, is just a regular stall with a wider door and such.
If there are two open stalls and a handicapped individual will need one before you're going to be done, then you're obliged to use the less accessible stall. Otherwise, they've got no greater claim or entitlement than anybody else. (An argument could be made that they have less, but we're still too socialistic for that.)
Accomodations have been made, but that doesn't equal entitlement. If the aisles in a library are made wider, and the shelves lower, so that some people who were physically unable to use the library are now able to do so, these people have no more claim to the library than any other patron.
If every stall in the library in the Dear Abby situation were handicap-accessible, the handicapped individual wouldn't have the right to go to the head of the line.
Links to this post:
