Three Way News
Your Source. For everything. Really.
Contributors
- Hammer
- Jambo
- Libby Mae
Current Poll
Recurring features
Hammer's Favorites
- Dobson v. Sponge-Bob
- Calvin, the nest egg
- Pat's predictions
- Bachmann spins Cupertino
- 205 atheists assume the bench
- Fox spins Oil for Food
- Fact check: highest taxed state
- Gen. Myers v. Reality
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Killing Field
- Kline hates Big Bird
- Vote Luca Brasi!
- Cornyn's Stalinist Supreme Court
- Rumsfeld's hidden metrics
Jambo's Favories
- Dolphin research updates
- We all shine on
- If you have to write...
- Columnist NY Times should have
- Truth about taxes
- Fourth of July
- Movie objects
- Lost in supermarket
- Dysfunctional Farmer Labor party
- Punks you hated
- Some preacher from east
- Winning issues
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Nanny 101 for the Religiously Correct
I forget which show I kinda like: Nanny 911 or Super Nanny. Either way, the first lesson in Nanny 101 is about consequences. You can't parent your children with empty threats. I'm reminded of this because the Religiously Correct are convinced that consequences should not apply to them:
The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal judge to jail public school teachers and administrators for allegedly violating a court-imposed ban on school prayers. It's the fourth time the ACLU has told Judge Ginger Berrigan that officials in Louisiana's Tangipahoa Parish are flouting her prayer ban. This time, the ACLU says an elementary school teacher repeatedly held prayers in her fourth-grade class, encouraged students to bring their Bibles to school, held Bible studies in the school cafeteria and admonished students who did not show up. In addition, the ACLU cites a prayer "in Jesus' name" that was recently given over a high school's public address system while the principal sat by silently. The ACLU says school officials' violation of the prayer ban "must result in their removal from society."
Let's see...a court orders someone to stop pushing their religion on a bunch of fourth graders. Teacher sez, "Judge Who?" and leads her class in prayer. Even scolds kids who refuse to attend Bible study. The ACLU quite rightly is asking that the court enforce its own order. I've got no objection to nonviolent civil disobedience, but the moral authority breaks down when you refuse to accept the consequences of your actions.
On the other hand, the Religiously Correct demand that Newsweek be held accountable for bad reporting:
A media watchdog group says even though Newsweek has now apologized for falsely reporting that U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet in an effort to get suspected terrorists to talk, the terrorist cause has still been aided. The news magazine has fully retracted the story, which sparked riots around the world in which 17 people were killed. Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media says Newsweek is totally to blame. "Clearly, blood is on the hands of Newsweek magazine, but the responsibility goes right to the top, to the office of Donald E. Graham, chairman of the board of the Washington Post company." ... "Newsweek has not only put U.S. troops in more danger; it has made all Americans more vulnerable to global terrorism." Kincaid says he believes terrorists will use the story to recruit more homicide bombers.
Accuracy in Media is not a fundamentalist group, but they use the same channels for their message. If the terrorists don't use Newsweek's story as a recruiting tool, they can always fall back on the horrible list Molly Ivins has composed:
...There seems to be a bit of a campaign on the right to blame Newsweek for the anti-American riots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Islamic countries.
She goes on to detail the horrible reports of abuse that have not roused nearly enough anger -- in this country at least. How dare we citizens let our government do these things in our name?
Uh, people, I hate to tell you this, but the story about Americans abusing the Koran in order to enrage prisoners has been out there for quite some time. The first mention I found of it is March 17, 2004, when the Independent of London interviewed the first British citizen released from Guantanamo Bay. The prisoner said he had been physically beaten but did not consider that as bad as the psychological torture, which he described extensively. Jamal al-Harith, a computer programmer from Manchester, said 70 percent of the inmates had gone on a hunger strike after a guard kicked a copy of the Koran. The strike was ended by force-feeding.
