Dennis Prager is a bit upset that the new Minnesota Congressman, Keith Ellison, wants to take his oath of office on the Quran.

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

That seems pretty extreme.

America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress

I’d really like to think Praeger is being sarcastic, but he’s serious. Apparently he doesn’t realize in 1674 the Jews of Barbados were allowed to take an oath on the Torah. And in 1822 the Jews of Maryland were granted the right to take a non-Christian oath. For a long time we’ve allowed elected officials to ‘affirm’ as opposed to making an oath. So he’s a little behind the times. More recently, Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, took her oath of office on the Torah.

But what really confuses me is why anyone would want a non-Christian to take the oath of office on a Christian bible. I mean — what is the purpose of an oath? It’s to assure that the individual is telling the truth, right? And if the individual doesn’t believe in the words contained within the Christian Bible, and they take their oath on that, then they would have no fear that they would be punished by their god for their lie. Only if they’re taking their oath on something that they believe will it have any effect — right?

I remember clearly a scene from some movie where a member of the clergy substitutes his ‘own bible’ for the bible offered him. Unbeknownst to everyone it’s a work of Dickens, so the clergy member has no problem lying.

The law should be changed so that if an elected official’s religion allows an oath to be taken, they should be forced to take their oath on their religion’s holy book. Otherwise, there’s no point.

Would they allow him to choose Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” the Nazis’ bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison’s right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

There are people who might argue Mein Kampf is their spiritual holy book, so I won’t make the argument I’ve seen elsewhere that that isn’t a holy book so it’s an unfair comparison. If someone were elected in this country who, G-d forbid, felt that was their holy book, then they should take the oath of office on that book. Otherwise, their oath is meaningless, and they might as well be crossing their fingers behind their back.

Toad has a timeline that some TechSupport workers might find helpful.

Reminds me of my experience with MySpace. As I mentioned on October 5 I finally got an email from MySpace saying they were working on my problem.

I forgot to mention that I got another email from them on November 16

“Dear MySpace.com User,

Thank you for contacting MySpace.com Customer Support.

Unfortunately, that option is not available. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Sincerely,

MySpace.com Customer Support Team”

The above was referencing my request to find out why they had deleted my old account. It was a reply to my original complaint from 9/15…and not my complaint when it was deleted a second time. And not their comment in October that they were working on my problem. So who knows, give them a month, and I might get another surprise email from them.

My new account is still working.

I’ve been procrastinating writing about this particular aspect of the Michael Richards story just to see if anything else turns up about it. But apparently after it was revealed that Michael Richards made anti-Semitic jokes in a routine several months ago, his PR guy announced, “Michael Richards can’t be anti-Semitic, because he’s Jewish.”

Of course, the reaction he got was, “Really? When did he convert?”

And it was, “Oh, he hasn’t converted. He has some Jewish friends though, and he likes the Jewish philosophy.” Source

Of course, I feel with great power comes great responsibility, but I’m not a Marvel Comics Superhero. I also agree with most everything Jesus said in the New Testament, but I’m not Christian. Of course, most everything Jesus said is also in the Old Testament. The Jewish philosophy, and Christian philosophy, and the Muslim philosophy are pretty much all very similar. But Richards proclaims himself Jewish, so he can’t be anti-Semitic. It’s a shame he can’t proclaim himself Black. (Unless of course you’re reading a satirical newspaper)

Of course, it’s all reminiscent of The Yada Yada — the 153rd episode of Seinfeld. Where Seinfeld’s dentist converts to Judaism, and Jerry thinks it’s only so he can tell Jewish jokes.

Note: I’m not saying I think Richards is anti-Semitic. He’s probably as anti-Semitic as he is racist. It’s just that he came up with a very stupid defense. Of course, lapsed Catholics have never been accused of being overly ‘clever’. With apologies, naturally, to my friends who fall in that category.

A lot of bloggers are talking today about the City of Chicago demanding that a Christmas Festival remove a nativity scene.

Of course, if you read the news story, it doesn’t really say that. What it says is still a bit of a head-scratcher, but there is a little exaggeration in the retelling in a lot of places.

These are the facts as I read them from the article:

1. The Christmas festival is produced by the Chicago German community, and is called Christkindlmarket
2. There will be a nativity scene on display at the festival.
3. The City of Chicago expressed a concern that New Line Cinema’s plans to display parts of a new film entitled The Nativity Story on televisions might not be appropriate.
4. The City of Chicago insists it made no demands or ultimatums.
5. The festival made the decision to drop New Line Cinema as a sponsor in response to the City’s concern

“Our guidance was that this very prominently placed advertisement would not only be insensitive to the many people of different faiths who come to enjoy the market for its food and unique gifts, but also it would be contrary to acceptable advertising standards suggested to the many festivals holding events on Daley Plaza,” Jim Law, executive director of the office, said in a statement.

I agree with those who say that those who go to Christkindlmarket must expect to see religious items. It seems silly. But the prominence of the advertisement could make a difference. And while the “acceptable advertising standards” aren’t specified, they could be completely unrelated to the religious nature of the advertisement.

This really can’t (or shouldn’t) be portrayed as a city trying to remove Christ from a Christmas festival. As Jesus seems to have a prominent location in the festival already, and they don’t seem to mind.

Jesse Jackson wants to ban the usage of the N word on television and in films. Which, would naturally, mean even bad characters wouldn’t be allowed to use the word. Nor would it allow a character to use the word at the beginning of the film, and change to the word ‘friend’ by the end, eliminating the performance of such classics as Huckleberry Finn.

No word on whether or not he would ban the usage of the word ‘hymietown’.

This guy is conducting an experiment to measure the speed of memes. I read about it on Toad’s blog. Get 10 people to participate, and you will have luck for 7 years. Good luck, bad luck, mediocre luck, I’m not certain. But you will have luck.

Can anyone recommend books to read on cells?
I could use it for what I am writing.
You’d think with my severe case of Francophilia I’d know more than I do.

The only book in my library on this topic is Robert Heinlein’s novel, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

There are some sentences in which one should never pause.

For example, at lunch today, a cousin said the following:

My girlfriend dyed her hair.

I posted this Edgar Guest poem in 2004, but I decided something light and festive should appear above that long serious essay below. I love Edgar Guest. For what he was — a king of sentimental, greeting card poetry.

Thanksgiving – by Edgar Guest

GETTIN’ together to smile an’ rejoice,
An’ eatin’ an’ laughin’ with folks of your choice;
An’ kissin’ the girls an’ declarin’ that they
Are growin more beautiful day after day;
Chattin’ an’ braggin’ a bit with the men,
Buildin’ the old family circle again;
Livin’ the wholesome an’ old-fashioned cheer,
Just for awhile at the end of the year.

Greetings fly fast as we crowd through the door
And under the old roof we gather once more
Just as we did when the youngsters were small;
Mother’s a little bit grayer, that’s all.
Father’s a little bit older, but still
Ready to romp an’ to laugh with a will.
Here we are back at the table again
Tellin’ our stories as women an men.

Bowed are our heads for a moment in prayer;
Oh, but we’re grateful an’ glad to be there.
Home from the east land an’ home from the west,
Home with the folks that are dearest an’ best.
Out of the sham of the cities afar
We’ve come for a time to be just what we are.
Here we can talk of ourselves an’ be frank,
Forgettin’ position an’ station an’ rank.

Give me the end of the year an’ its fun
When most of the plannin’ an’ toilin’ is done;
Bring all the wanderers home to the nest,
Let me sit down with the ones I love best,
Hear the old voices still ringin’ with song,
See the old faces unblemished by wrong,
See the old table with all of its chairs
An I’ll put soul in my Thanksgivin’ prayers.

First, here’s a series of quotes. If you’ve been reading the entertainment news lately, you can probably figure out what inspired this post.

• “Jew me, Sue me…Kick me, Kike me” – Michael Jackson, “They Don’t Care about Us”
• “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world” – Mel Gibson
• “Shut up! Fifty years ago we’d have you upside down with a [expletive]
  fork up your a–.” – Michael Richards
• “[Buddhism is] auto-erotic spirituality” – then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — 1997 (often paraphrased as ‘spiritual masturbation’)
• “I guess I’m part Jewish because I don’t spend a lot of money or make a lot of bets.” – Barry Bonds
• “I don’t give a hoot that [Columbus] gave some Indians a disease that they didn’t have immunity against” – Rush Limbaugh (Way Things Ought to Be – p. 45)
• “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. ” – Ann Coulter, 9/12/01
• “The Jews, I find are very, very selfish…When they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog.” — Harry S Truman, Truman’s Diaries
• “Gay people, well, gay people are EVIL. Evil right down to their cold black hearts which pump not blood like yours or mine, but rather–a thick, vomitous oil that oozes through their rotten veins and clots in their pea-sized brains; which becomes the cause of their Nazi-esque patterns of violent behavior. Do you understand?” — South Park episode (Mr. Garrison).
• “Throw the jew down the well. So my country can be free. You must grab him by his horns. Then we have a big party.” – Borat (Sascha Baron Cohen) – “Throw the Jew Down the Well”

Note: I’ve tried to use quotes that have been well-documented.

That’s a pretty good cross-section of quotes. So how would I categorize them? Are they all equally offensive?

1. There are probably some people who would say ‘yes’
2. still more who would say that while not equal, they are all offensive.
3. Another segment who believe that at least a few of the quotes would be offensive if said by someone else, but in context, they are funny — and vice versa. The ones that are offensive, could be funny, if said by someone else in a different context.
4. And probably some people who laugh and cheer all the quotes.

I fall in group 3. It would be easier to fall in groups 1, 2 or 4. Much easier. As someone in this category, I see a responsibility to come up with consistent guidelines to apply to each situation.

1. State of mind at time of quote

After Mel Gibson’s drunken tirade, there were many who said that what you say when drunk ‘reveals your true self’. Similar statements over the past few days have been made about what one says while enraged, as Michael Richards was at the comedy club.

The argument goes: while sober, and in control of our emotions, our brain tells us when ‘not to say something’. Most individuals in the public eye know what they “shouldn’t” be caught saying if they don’t want to be crucified by the press. So while drunk or enraged, our true feelings are being revealed.

There is that, but I argue there is something else to consider. I’m not a psychiatrist, but I know that there have been times an irrational thought floated through my brain, and I’ve told myself how irrational it is, and ignored it. The irrational thoughts aren’t my ‘true’ thoughts. My brain isn’t telling me it’s ‘incorrect’ to express these throughts. It’s telling me the thoughts are incorrect in the first place. Get me drunk, and I might express some ideas I don’t really believe. I’ve never had any rage issues.

So how do we know which one it is? Well, both Mel Gibson and Michael Richards have apologized and expressed horror at what they said. I say, unless new instances occur that suggest otherwise, we believe them. And, if anyone is curious, this is pretty much what I said back in July.

In all of the other quotes above the individuals, to the best of my knowledge, were sober and in control of their emotions.

2. Context of quote

A. Written vs. Spoken

As a writer, a lot of thought goes into what I write. I have written columns for newspapers, fiction, poetry, and song lyrics. If something I have written offends you, I have much less defense than if something I say offends you. Occasionally I might be a bit sloppy and not do enough research, and I might write something I later regret.

Anyway, what Michael Jackson wrote into his song lyrics, what Rush Limbaugh wrote in his book, what Ann Coulter wrote in her newspaper column, and what Harry S Truman wrote in his diary? Those are/were their thoughts. Michael Jackson did apologize. I’ll give him that. More will be said about Truman below.

B. The identity of the speaker

Normally you’d think who says something shouldn’t make a difference in whether or not it is offensive. However, many people feel it is OK for someone to say offensive things about his/her own “people.” Many people see this as humorous.

Borat is a character played by Sacha Baron Cohen. He went to some Southern US bars and got (drunk) patrons to sing the anti-Semitic song along with him. The video of this is viewed as an expose of the anti-semitism in the South. And of course Sacha Baron Cohen can’t be anti-Semitic because he’s Jewish. The same thing is said about Jackie Mason, and other Jewish comics who make a living from this humor. There was a joke on an episode of Seinfeld where a stand-up comic converted so he could tell Jewish jokes. I both laugh at the humor, and find it uncomfortable.

The same thing happens with other minorities. Gay comics make jokes about gays. Italian comics make jokes about Italians. Black comics make jokes about blacks. (This happens in countries other than America.) And the audience, whether they are gay, Italian, or black, are expected to laugh. I guess the audience members have to ask themselves why they are laughing? Are they laughing because the comedian is getting away with saying something taboo, but which the audience member believes to be true?

Barry Bonds brings up a related issue. Here is a fuller quote: “”My agent is Jewish. They call me a black Jew. I guess I’m part Jewish because I don’t spend a lot of money or make a lot of bets.” It appears Bonds was quoting or paraphrasing his Jewish manager. Does that excuse him? Partly, in my mind; especially since he did apologize for his statement. However, not entirely, as he was still spreading the stereotypes.

C. Fictional Characters

South Park makes fun of everyone, and this is often used by fans as a reason why it’s acceptable humor. Of course, when the words are taken out of the mouths of the animated characters and put into the mouths of public figures, the public figures are pilloried. Why do we laugh at Eric Cartman and Mr. Garrison, but we don’t laugh at Mel Gibson and Michael Richards? Put what Michael Richards said into the mouth of Eric Cartman, and we’d be laughing hilariously at the TV set. Sure, accusing a fictional character of bigotry just makes you look silly, like Dan Quayle attacking Murphy Brown. But one can ask what the intent is of Matt Stone and Trey Parker (the creators of South Park). And we, the viewers, need to ask ourselves why we are laughing, and are we comfortable with our laughter.

Personally, I find the Lonely Jew song funny. I was uncomfortable with the episode that had the Catholic Priests all under the control of a horrific alien monster. But a friend who was raised Catholic found it humorous.

3. Historical considerations

Can we excuse Harry S Truman because he wrote what he wrote in 1947? Yes, I think we can, at least partially. Abraham Foxman’s op-ed column is pretty good. We need to realize that sometimes actions are more important than words, be thankful for how far this nation has come, but also cognizant that bigotry still remains, and needs to be exposed in others, and fought within ourselves.

Video of Michael Richards’ outburst on stage (lots of language NSFW)
Video of Apology on Letterman
Borat video (also NSFW)