Last year I blogged about Muslims in Baltimore County, Maryland, demanding that Muslim holidays be added to the government school calendar.
Last week, school board members refused the request. From the article:
Baltimore County public school officials have said that adding Muslim holidays to the school calendars is unlawful and “irresponsible,” marking another setback in attempts across the region to add the holidays…School officials, however, stood firm by a state law that disallows public schools from endorsing any religion, saying the school calendar can include scheduled closures only for holidays that cause low attendance rates countywide.
…
The anti-discrimination committee has pushed its request for the past several years, calling it an issue of equality because schools recognize Jewish and Christian holidays.
So it isn’t a matter of discriminating against Muslims. If followers of Allah become a large enough majority that schools are half-empty during Muslim holidays, the state may choose to close schools. Is it all about…economics?
Being the very opinionated person I am, my view (that the religion of Islam is incompatible with the West) is on the record . What’s yours?
Related posts:
Need a break from the political back and forth? Click over to this site…
…but only if you’re a hardcore Harry Potter fan.
(I know what you’re thinking. Get your mind out of the gutter!)
Update (4/30): Want to learn how to unlock Harry Potter, understand what J.K. Rowling is trying to accomplish, and figure out what must happen in Deathly Hallows? Follow the link.
Monday, April 30: Homosexuals, Hate, and the Gospel
By the way, there is no epidemic or rash of “hate” crimes being committed against homosexuals or sexually confused people or blacks (by whites). However, there is an epidemic that deserves more attention, as noted by an e-mailer:
“The single biggest reason that hate-crime legislation leaves me cold? I live just outside Philadelphia, Pa. So far, there’ve been 137 murders, a 20% increase so far over last year’s total of 406. The vast majority have been black on black, mostly male on male. Who hates whom?”
And let’s not forget hispanic-on-black “hate” out in CA.
Producer-Hate
Earlier this month, a producer at a cable news network sent me an innocuous “Aren’t you going to comment on Don Imus?” e-mail, which I’d intended to ignore. Later that day, I got an e-mail from someone from a Yahoo! account with the same name. It was in CAPS, including the subject line.
He called me an a**hole and a self-hater because I criticized Deval Patrick, governor of Massachusetts, for promising to repeal a 1913 law that prohibits out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage would be illegal in their home state, so that homosexuals could “marry” in his state. Then-governor Mitt Romney refused to repeal the law because he knew it was practically the only thing preventing Massachusetts from becoming the “Las Vegas for same-sex marriage.”
I e-mailed the dude at his work (twice) and Yahoo! accounts, trying to figure out what was going on. I received no reply from either account.
[click to continue…]
*** Scroll down for updates ***
I never thought I’d see the day when newspapers would be agonizing over whether to allow readers to comment on stories. An excerpt:
Faced with declining circulation, many U.S. newspapers are trying to engage readers by allowing them to respond to news stories online. But the anonymity of the Internet lets readers post obscenities and racist hate speech that would never be allowed in the printed paper.
First, how does allowing comments on stories posted online help with print circulation? With a few exceptions, newspaper web sites allow free access to all stories (though they may require free registration). I don’t see the connection. Regarding online ad revenue, I don’t think allowing comments on stories necessarily increases online newspaper readership. Some of the highest trafficked bloggers I know don’t allow comments. It’s the perceived value of the information, in my opinion, not what readers have to say about it, that brings the eyes.
Second, I’m not too quick to trust a leftist journalist’s judgment about what is or isn’t “racist hate speech.” Sometimes, telling the truth about a person or situation is construed as hateful. Expressing an opinion that may offend liberal sensibilities or challenge his worldview might be called racist.
Third, while I get a kick out of reading feedback on some stories, I don’t think newspapers should waste time worrying about whether to allow it. Like this guy:
[click to continue…]
