French burkas, racial profiling and the Tebow-Super Bowl flap

Listening to the news on the radio while I drive to work is a great source of inspiration for blog material.

As a sign I saw in a gift shop recently said, “Everyone is entitled to my own opinion.”

They are fighting over burkas in France these days. Those are the robes for Muslim women that cover their entire body including their face. France is considering banning them in public buildings, citing subjugation of women and security as the reasons. Naturally, those on the other sides are yelling about freedom of religion and France’s national identity. It’s interesting how Muslim leaders will cry for religious freedom when they are in the minority. However, try to wear a tee-shirt with “What would Jesus do?” written on it and see how far you get in the streets of Saudi Arabia or Iran. I suspect the mullahs would be singing another tune.

*     *     *     *

A bill is scheduled to be introduced into the Georgia General Assembly today that would outlaw racial profiling. I am ambivalent about this issue.

On one hand, I don’t think someone should be arrested or harassed because of the color of their skin. ie: driving while black, etc.

On the other hand, crime is a serious issue in Savannah. Even out in our little suburban enclave, it is something to be concerned with. And at least here in Savannah, the vast, overwhelming majority of street crimes (assault, robbery, burglary, etc.) are committed by African Americans, primarily young, male African Americans. A story in yesterday’s local newspaper described arrest activity from the weekend and showed the mugs of the 12 people arrested. Ten of the twelve were black men. Unfortunately, this is not an anomaly. This brings me back to the initial question:  Do I want to take away from the police one tool that might help them keep myself, my home and my family safe?  I don’t know.

*     *     *     *

Our favorite-son quarterback, Tim Tebow, is taking hits this week, and not just at the Senior Bowl practice in Mobile. He and his mom are going to appear in a anti-abortion Super Bowl commercial paid for by the Christian advocacy group “Focus on the Family.” Supposedly, the ad will have Tim and his mom talking about her experience when pregnant with Tim. As the story goes, she had a difficult pregnancy and was advised to terminate the pregnancy for her health. She refused to do so, and the end result is Tim, a remarkable young man by any standard.

I am not a big fan of Focus on the Family, for what little I know about them. Nor have I seen the TV spot, but then again, neither had anyone else.

Nonetheless, the Women’s Media Center, with backing from the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and other groups, are throwing the penalty flags in Tim’s and CBS’s direction.

“An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year – an event designed to bring American’s together,” said Jemhu Greene, president of the Women’s Media Center.

“…an event designed to bring American’s together”??? I thought it was an event designed to determine the champion of the National Football League, provide an excuse for some Sunday afternoon parties and to make a lot of money for a bunch of people. I never knew it was supposed to be some kind of national unity event. Silly me.

I wonder if Ms. Greene has ever been to a viewing party or a football game where there were decent percentages of fans of both team? (Super Bowl, Florida-Georgia, Texas-Oklahoma, a BCS championship game, etc.)  I suspect she has not. If she had ever actually been to one of those games, she would know that unity is not a concept that comes to mind.

I don’t believe the women’s advocacy group really have much to complain about except that the Tebows’ message will probably be something they will disagree with.

The funniest shot comes from’s Greg Doyel.

“If you’re a sports fan, and I am, that’s the holiest day of the year,” he wrote. “It’s not a day to discuss abortion. For it, against it, I don’t care what you are. On Super Sunday, I don’t care what I am. Feb. 7 is simply not the day to have that discussion.”

The irony is just pure honey. According to Doyel, Super Bowl Sun“Thou shalt keep holy the Lord’s…” day is too holy to be despoiled by any talk of morals, ethics, or, God forbid, religion. No further comment is necessary.

For myself, it just gives me something to look forward to watching the game.


5 responses to “French burkas, racial profiling and the Tebow-Super Bowl flap

  1. Actually, Islam is quite tolerant of Christianity, as well as Judaism. Muslims consider Christians and Jews “People of the Book” (i.e. the spiritual descendants of Abraham). Islam maintains that truly devout Christians and Jews will go to Heaven, just as truly devout Muslims will.

    Islam is one of the most tolerant of the major religions–while Christianity is the least tolerant. In fact, Christianity is the only major religion that accepts no other religion as legitimate. In Christian doctrine, only Christians go to Heaven.

    There was no Arab/Muslim terrorism before the Zionist State (“Israel”) was established in 1948.
    Arabs had occupied Palestine for 1300 years, and were suddenly forced from their homeland.
    Since then, the U.S. has been the Zionist State’s greatest supporter–providing it with 3 billion dollars a year, plus countless weapons. In fact, “Israel” is the only Middle-Eastern nation with nuclear capabilities–which it obviously acquired from the U.S. In 1948, not all of Palestine was given to the Jews. But in 1966-67, the Israeli Jews took over the remainder of Palestine, using weapons provided by the U.S.

    In short, the establishment of the Zionist State, and its ongoing support by the U.S. is an ongoing atrocity against the Arab people, and against Muslims, in general. This is not an excuse for terrorism, but an explanation of it.

    And this conflict can never be resolved as long as Americans remain proudly ignorant about Islam, and proudly hateful of Muslims.

  2. Scott–

    This is not the place to debate Middle Eastern politics, but I do believe your explanation is somewhat simplistic. It ignores…

    1.) The Nazi genocide.
    2.) The Jews “historic claim” to the land.
    3.) The division of Palestine in1948, along with the creation of Jordan. There was a Palestinian homeland included in the division.
    4.) The three “wars of extermination” waged by the Arab Palestinian’s “brothers” against Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973.
    5.) The active campaign in 1948 by other Arab leaders for Palestinians to leave Israel with the promise of being able to return after the conquest to take over their Jewish neighbor’s property.
    6.) The subsequent use of Palestinian refugees as political pawns by other Arab nations by their refusal to assimilate the Palestinians into their society since such assimilation with be a de facto acknowledgment of Israel as a permanent nation, and not a temporary abberation.
    7.) While Israel is the only nuclear capable nation in the ME (although the source of its capability is certainly not definite) it is also the only unquestioned democracy in a region full of de facto dictators and monarchs.
    8.) And on, and on…

  3. I mean “debate”–excuse me.

  4. Pingback: 2010 in review | Another Beautiful Day in Paradise!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s