I posted yesterday about a community (I still didn't catch the name, but I have narrowed it down to the Chicago suburbs) that banned pork, jello, and was attempting to ban Christmas and Halloween.
It was reported this morning that there was a school board meeting last night that went way past midnight to discuss these issues. I don't know what the details are, but the bottom line is that all items have been restored to the menu and those with pork or pork by-products will be marked with an asterisk.
In addition, all holidays will be recognized. Instead of removing Christmas and Halloween, Ramadan will be added to the list of recognized holidays.
Common sense? Sounds as if there was a rash of it last night. I should point out that more than likely this could not have happened without the consent of the Muslim parents who were present. I sounds as if a compromise was reached and everyone is happy. Congratulations, and thanks to all for standing up and acting like reasonable adults.
I said everyone was happy. Everyone except the ACLU. I will watch for a lawsuit over this incident.
You Are Among The Elite!
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
A Small Victory, And Some Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 Posts From Readers:
Oh, I guarantee you their lawyers are congregating as we speak!
Common sense...in a public school system! Who'd have thunk it?
I am so tired of this catering to Muslims out of fear of offending.
Everytime someone caters it is a victory for Al Qaeda and Islamo fascists because they have caused the fear of offending! It is a sick attempt to appease and not stand up to these fanatics!
Well, this is the result that the Muslim parents wanted in the first place. From Liberty Post:
" The district has a 30 percent Arab-American population, many of whom practice Islam. The superintendent says the reason for the change in tradition comes after one parent wanted Ramadan decorations put up inside Columbus Manor Elementary. They were taken down."
And from the Chicago Tribune:
"Elizabeth Zahdan, a mother of three District 122 students, says she took her concerns to the school board this month, not because she wanted to do away with the traditions, but rather to make them more inclusive. "I only wanted them modified to represent everyone," she said.
Nixing them isn't the response she was looking for. "Now the kids are not being educated about other people," she said."
Thank you Dora, for citing those references.
My issue in the beginning was not with the Muslim parents or the Muslim population there at all. My issue was with the school board who chose to debate removing all holidays to remove the possibility of future action.
I was my feeling that it was not the Muslim population asking for this,and they were simply trying to be involved with the community and ask that the community include their interests.
It worked out with some debate and with some common sense.
Common sense prevails, it's a miracle. At least it sure feels like one. It would not suprise me one teeny tiny little bit if the ACLU picks this up and runs with it. I have no problem with them adding another Holiday, after all this is a country with many religions. It is when they start taking away religions (mainly Christian ) that I start getting ticked off. If only all of these cases could end so well. A little compromise from all sides and everyone leaves like happy little campers. Cased closed.
I dunno, Robert. I'm as happy as the next person that this is resolved so well, but your last post on the matter did not have a very inclusive tone. You wrote,
"30% is a majority and 70% must sacrifice to keep the majority happy."
"Maybe some people have a point. Maybe we should stop fighting Muslim extremism in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that the extremism has moved to the US."
You didn't seem to be angry with the school board, you seemed angry with the Muslims. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong.
The way I see it, either the school had to include everyone's holidays, or no one's. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been fair.
Dora, one of my major problems with the left is the tendency to find something negative in every single statement.
30% is not a majority, and 70% of peolpe shouldn't have to change to make the minority happy. That is all the point was, nothing more. I don't care if you are talking about coconut oil used for popping corn at movie theaters, or if 30% of people want to outlaw the double cheeseburger at McDonalds (I would incite riots if this ever happened), 30% of a group shouldn't be able to force 70% of the other side to change their entire structure to accomodate.
I wasn't talking about Muslims being the extreme ones, I was talking about the American, probably caucasion, left wing who actually considered cancelling Christmas on the school calendar because of ONE PARENT who expressed concerns.
We are in complete agreement. I have absolutely no problem with including Ramadan as a holiday. You will just have to trust me when I say that if the numebrs were reversed, 70% Muslim and 30% everyone else with all other thigs being equal, I would have the same exact take on the matter.
30% of a group shouldn't be able to force 70% of the other side to change their entire structure to accomodate.
You seem to be suggesting that what the majority wants should be the rule. So, say, if the majority of this country wanted some tax dollars paid only to Christian churches, that would be okay. Or if the majority of this country wanted to have racial segregation, or to exile all homosexuals, that is okay because that is what the majority wants.
I hope that this is not what you are saying. I hope I am wrong.
Oh Robert, you wanted one, you got one! LOL Have fun!!
I heard about this the other day and it got me thinking, what the heck do the kids think about all this nonsense.
But congradulations are in order, instead of taking these Holiday's away from the children I'm glad they just added another one :-)
Common sense prevails.... amazing what happens when one side listens to the other side and works things out.
I have no problem with adding Ramadan or whatever to "acknowledged days", Christmas, Thanksgiving and a myriad of other days are religious in nature. What is good for the Goose is damn well good for the Gander. I want Buddist day, Osama day, Robert Byrd day, Naked day, Tree-hug day, Socialism day, Capitalism-is-our-friend day, and last but not least, Blogger day!
C'mon Dora, let us be sensible and apply some high level concepts as opposed to specific examples that are not appropriately similar.
The story was about two groups with similar interests and a thrid governing body attempting to discover how to meet all needs without depriving one group. 70% are defending the norm, and 30% trying to change the norm. (Actually, it wasn't the 30% it was the governing body, but for the sake of argument we will keep it simple)Under no form of common sense should the 30% be able to dictate the way in which 70% live.
Of course this doesn't apply to items that run contrary to our Constitution such as wife beating or slavery.
However, the Constitution is a "living document", remember? If we wanted to amend the Consitution, we can.
Gotta be careful what you wish for, Jenn.
Marie, Conservative COmmentary gladly takes the credit for leading the charge! LOL
The story was about two groups with similar interests and a thrid governing body attempting to discover how to meet all needs without depriving one group. 70% are defending the norm, and 30% trying to change the norm. (Actually, it wasn't the 30% it was the governing body, but for the sake of argument we will keep it simple)Under no form of common sense should the 30% be able to dictate the way in which 70% live.
Your question doesn't make sense to me. If the matter being decided does not implicate issues of law or constitution, then the majority will win, if the matter is decided in any even remotely democratic fashion. There is no question of who SHOULD win.
But the issue in this case did partially implicate the constitution, because there is no constitutional basis for allowing Christmas decorations, but not Ramadan ones.
our language speaks volumes about your perspective on government. The Constitution does not "allow" anything.
The Constitution as designed to enumerate rights that were considered granted by God. They also enumerate limitations on government action.
It seems to me that you are getting bogged down in semantics. It matters not whether the constitution is full of rights granted by god, or that exist because of natural law. The rights and their respective histories and jurisprudence exist and are binding on us.
I don't think there is much room for debate on the point that constitutional issues were implicated in this case. When that happens, it no longer matters much what the majority and what the minority position is, it becomes a matter of law, not tallying votes.
Post a Comment