Related Posts

I confess, I was amused

A friend was insulted, but doesn’t read the blog on a (semi-)regular basis. I think the real criticism is the hypocrisy of the Republicans, but you decide.

Unorganized Thoughts on Abu Ghraib

I don’t want to spend a lot of time analyzing the situation at Abu Ghraib; there are people who are doing it far better than I could – and they are linked on the side of the site. There are, however, some thoughts that are floating around that I just want to throw out and see if anything comes of them.

Rage

Not outrage. Simply rage. Demi has commented before about how amazed she is that we can be (relatively) calm about the situation in Iraq. I think I’ve hit my limit. I’ve previously posted about how the abuses committed by insurgents are utterly un-Islamic. Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, Kim Sun-Il, God rest their souls, each one, and may God grant their families strength and peace. Regardless of the fact the Wahhabis think that beheadings are cool, they are not, and furthers my argument that the Wahhabis should not be a voice for Islam if they are not Muslim. I feel an…

2 thoughts on “Idolizing the big 10”

  1. I agree with your comments. Asra Nomani in her book points out that the Saudis are hardcore about pictures of people being idolatrous, but that hasn’t stopped them from plastering Mecca with pictures of the ruling caste. Apparently, not looking directly into the camera is the key difference between idolatry and a halal snapshot.
    It’s hard to believe that Ten Commandments cases are still litigated, but there you go. I’ll predict a split-the-baby (but hardly Solomonaic) decision that will generate litigation (and legal fees) for years still. Here’s my prediction: on a 5-4 vote, displays of the Ten Commandments on public property will be held not to violate constitutional principles of separation of church and state. However, the court will refuse to establish a bright line rule but instead hold that in each case, the question will be whether the display is, in the “totality of the circumstances” for a secular or religious purpose. One “prong” of the test will be how prominent the display is. So a display the size of a house in a public park is out, but a small display in a courthouse along with, say, a display of a copy of the constitution or the magna carta is not. Sometimes, this is as intellectual as constitutional analysis gets.
    But this court is not about to invalidate the countless examples of religious iconography that has always been present in American public life, like prayers before legislative sessions, or even the Court’s baliff’s cry of “God save this Honorable Court” before the Nine take the bench. The last two examples are not implicated directly in the present cases, but you can seen the “slippery slope” that the examples present. On the the hand, I don’t think this Court is prepared to say that it’s ok to have laser light shows over the Capitol building featuring the Ten Commandments and Cecil B. DeMille’s voiceover.
    But of course, I could be wrong. Allahu alam.

  2. Oddly enough, I think I would be OK with the laser light shows. You could argue about the ephemerality of life (Buddhism), the cyclical nature of life (Hinduism), techno-wizadry (Atheism), of course you make the Abrahamics happy. Although I was thinking James Earl Jones for the voice.

Comments are closed.