If you ever want an example of how the U.S. legal system and frivolous lawsuits have changed American life, look no further than school playgrounds.

The AP has written a recent article documenting how more and more schools are banning games like dodgeball, touch football, tag, and “any other unsupervised chase game.” The reason? School officials are afraid children will get hurt playing the games, and “hold the school liable.” Perhaps more accurately, they’re afraid parents will hold the school liable, and given recent history, one can’t necessarily blame them for being concerned about that possibility. It’s unfortunate, however, that some are responding by making silly, overprotective and idiotic bans on perfectly wholesome games such as “unsupervised” tag.

“If you thought comedy was dead, you should have been in Britain after the pope cited the opinion of a Byzantine emperor who died 600 years ago.”

That’s how Taki Theodoracopulos (yes, that is his real name) began his column in the latest edition of The America Conservative. Apparently a 49-year-old man named Ronnie Hutton was jailed in Britain after, get this, he was accused of “revving his car in a racist manner.”

As Taki puts it, tongue delightfully in cheek: “Yes, in these politically correct times, engines too can be racists, especially if revved up.”

Maybe Hutton really was trying to intimidate the Libyan couple who were in tradional Arab dress and walking nearby. (He says he was trying to solve an engine problem by revving it, as the article linked to above eventually notes.) And we’re not defending his two-word response to a retired police officer who intervened. But the idea of getting in any sort of trouble for supposedly revving an engine in a “racist manner” still strikes us as ridiculous.

The online encyclopedia Wikipedia has a rather lengthy entry on homeschooling. Not surprisingly, the neutrality of the article is “disputed,” as a notice near the top of the entry warns readers.

When I see any “disputed” entry on Wikipedia, I usually go to the discussion page to see what the fuss is about—and in this case, the discussion page is here. Scroll down a bit, and you’ll find some really interesting comments from various users. Among the better (or worse) ones:

There’s a strong suspicion that a fair amount of homeschooling is conducted by nutcases who, by definition, aren’t going to participate in an academic study. One of the largest and most detailed studies on homeschooling family characteristics was conducted using data generated by Bob Jones University, so even that data has a self-filtering mechanism built in.

It seems like one issue missing on this discussion page is that of homeschooling’s successfulness, which still for me is unsettled . . . I wonder if homeschool students take standardized tests like Virginia’s SOL; an update here is appreciable. I also have sensed a conspiracy in the participation of homeschool students in spelling bees because it seems like parents are just trying to impress colleges knowing that success in these events don’t reflect overall competence.

To deny that a large portion of homeschooling parents act out of intolerance is to deny a fact, not an opinion.

Of course, there are some better contributions as well:

My personal opinion (not observed fact) is that it is ridiculous in the extreme to presume that home-schooled children are more likely to be sheltered from the “real world” and that their socialization is abnormal. I would expect that homeschooled children are not the ones who are locked down into stifling, cheerless compartments and immoblized at uncomfortable desks for practically their entire waking life. The “socialization” imposed by schooling has only become perceived as normal because enough generations have gone by not to understand how new and peculiar this entire system of public schooling is. How can anyone consider it normal socialization to be forbidden to speak or move freely for 2/3 of the day? How can you be socially deprived when you have the entire day, every day, to meet and connect with anyone you please? As I think I’ve said already, what amazes me most of all is my finding that most people, when encouraged to actually think about it, realize from their own experiences that this is neither normal nor preferable—yet it is either too late for themselves or their children, or they are too frightened of the consequences to consider an alternative.

There’s an interesting discussion at AgentTimOnline over Agent Tim’s latest post, in which he discusses the Bible and illegal immigration. He opens his post with a link to an article that claims to show that “The Bible is unabashedly pro-immigrant.”

Unfortunately, the article, which you can read here, is guilty of the logical fallacy we call a “red herring,” or diversion.

The author of the article apparently can only find one Bible passage to support his view that the Bible is “explicit[ly]” and “unabashedly” pro immigrant:

Immigration is different: The Bible is explicit. In the Torah, Moses commanded, “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.” The Bible is unabashedly pro-immigrant.

The author continues:

The argument is simple: You were immigrants in Egypt, and you didn’t like being mistreated, so now that you have your own country, you should treat immigrants compassionately. Compassionate treatment of immigrants is basically an early version of the Golden Rule: Treat people the way you used to want to be treated when you were in Egypt.

That’s all fine and dandy, except he is arguing for a conclusion that isn’t at issue. No Christian “hard-line conservative,” as this author refers to those who want to put a stop to illegal immigration, thinks that immigrants should be mistreated. The real issue at hand is illegal immigration, and whether a nation has the duty to punish those who break the law by illegally entering this country.

Are we “mistreating” or “oppressing” immigrants by deporting them after they broke the law by entering our country illegally? Or are we instead upholding orderly conduct, the rule of law, and respect for our nation’s borders?

Later on the author claims, without a shred of evidence, that Jesus and his parents “crossed the border to Egypt illegally” for fear of persecution from Herod. The Bible does not state that they did so illegally, and if there is historical evidence that they did so illegally, he does not provide it. Ultimately though, he can only cite one passage from the Bible while claiming that the Bible is “explicit” and “unabashedly pro-immigrant”—and the one Bible passage has nothing to do with the real issue at hand.

The title of AgentTim’s latest post is misleading, because there really is no “Biblical worldview on immigration.” Immigration is not a religious issue—it’s a political one. Having said that, there are many Bible passages that speak of obedience to a nation’s government, including:

1 Peter 2:13: “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.”

Romans 13:1-2: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities . . . those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incure judgment.”

Subjecting oneself to the governing authorities also means subjecting oneself to the laws of that country. It is clear from this that the Bible leaves no room for illegal immigration—rather, such an act is wrong and should be punished.

Found this via Albert Mohler’s blog:

MADRID (Reuters) – Spain’s parliament is to declare support for rights to life and freedom for great apes on Wednesday, apparently the first time any national legislature will have recognized such rights for non-humans.

Parliament is to ask the government to adhere to the Great Ape Project, which would mean recognizing that our closest genetic relatives should be part of a “community of equals” with humans, supporters of the resolution said.

The move in a country better known for bull-fighting would follow a string of social reforms which have converted Spain from one of Europe’s most conservative nations into a liberal trailblazer.

Backers of the resolution expect support from the Socialist Party of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, whose government has legalized gay marriage and reduced the influence of the Catholic Church in education.

“With this, Spain will make itself a world leader in protection of the great apes,” said Pedro Pozas, general secretary of the Great Ape Project’s Spanish branch.

The resolution, presented by a Green Party parliamentarian, prompted criticism and some ridicule at first.

Spanish media quoted the Catholic Archbishop of Pamplona as saying it was ludicrous to grant apes rights not enjoyed by unborn children, in a reference to Spanish abortion laws.

There’s an extremely interesting and thought provoking post at the blog Crystal Spirit about the objectification of women. Not just any women, but “traditional Christian conservative homeschooling” women:

[Objectification] even exists among your “traditional Christian conservative homeschooling” circles. Oh, they’d deny it, I’m sure. After all, God created men and women equal. It’s just that men are more equal than women. Gotta love the Animal Farm twist there.

But how in the world are women being objectified in such a circle? They don’t treat women as sexual objects, after all. Well, maybe not…but I’d venture a guess that they do treat them as objects. See, in your traditional circle, women are expected to stay at home, raise 10+ children, submit to their husband in everything and not question what he says. The man’s word is law. Women are not allowed any say…they are under the authority of their husband. I’ve seen too often this “women can’t have any opinions other than their husband’s mentality”, and it IS objectifying women.

You can read the rest of the post here. It definitely provides an intriguing view point that I haven’t seen addressed before, but does seem worth some consideration.

Yesterday, April 20th, is a holiday. The holiday has no specific name, but apparently it has “underground” or “counter-culture” roots and involves the use—perhaps abuse would be a better description—of marijuana.

I found this out today while reading an article in the “Editorial & Opinion” section of my college’s newspaper. The article, which you can read here, takes an alarming but unsurprising positive viewpoint toward this “holiday,” calling it “the nearest event the weed community comes to an International Marijuana Independence Day.”

Obviously this doesn’t say much for the state of my university’s (far-left) “newspaper.” (And as far as I’m concerned, any publication that runs material like this isn’t deserving of the title “newspaper.”) But putting that aside for the moment, I want to concentrate on one specific passage in the article. Noting that the date 4/20 is also the anniversary of the Columbine Massacre in Colorado seven years ago, the author writes:

This isn’t a hippie, “peace, love and weed, man” utopia I’m describing. Merely a mellower, contemplative and communal environment that is a rarity on a Thursday in raucous college towns.

Maybe April 20 wouldn’t be remembered as horridly if before they shot 12 fellow students on the morning of April 20, Columbine High School students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had forgot that 4/20 signified the birthday of arguably the 20th century’s most vile human being.

What if they instead turned back home, and reconsidered this demonic plan over a stuffed bowl and the latest Marilyn Manson record?

After a few puffs of the notoriously-potent Colorado bud, it’s possible, hypothetical rhetoric aside, the stoned paranoia would’ve gotten the best of the duo, causing them to — at least for a brief spell — re-think the cowardly acts they were preparing to execute.

The author seems to be suggesting that smoking marijuana would have at least potentially stopped the two high school students who went on the murder spree. Interesting thought, to say the least. This has captured my interest enough that I’m considering writing an article on this for the next issue of Virtue Magazine.

Did you know the United States Treasury has an Office of Financial Education? The mission of this office is to teach Americans how to “make wiser choices in all areas of personal financial management.”

We’ll pause to let the irony of this situation—a federal office advicing Americans on how to manage their finances—sink in for a bit.

Granted, the advice the department offers is quite sensible: don’t spend everything you make, save, etc. The only problem is that our federal government itself doesn’t follow this advice—if it did, we probably wouldn’t have an “Office of Financial Education” in the first place. (The office, which was created in May 2002, undoubtedly cost a few million dollars to start up and a few million more each year to keep running.)

Writes the New Ulm Journal editorial page:

This agency . . . is emblematic of myriad nice ideas upon which the GOP-controlled Congress and the Bush administration evidently felt compelled to spend our money. With no sense of limitations on what government ought or ought not to do, seemingly every nice idea becomes a tentacle of ever bigger government.

This leads me to another excellent thought, this one from Bryce at Blog of Bryce. In a post titled “It Flies Away,” Bryce writes:

Please don’t tell me that Bush cut taxes. I really don’t care. In fact, if one more person reminds me of his tax cuts, I may just scream. You think I should be delighted because tax cuts are lifting the burden from me while concurrently deferring a greater weight of debt to my children and grandchildren?

Exactly. What good are tax cuts if the government continues to spend money at rates not seen since the days of Lyndon Johnson and The Greaty Society? Do conservatives think money grows on trees, and 20 or 50 years down the road we can pluck $100,000 dollar bills off the branches to pay for our government’s annual spending deficits and mounting debt? No; unless a future president and Congress drastically reduces spending—which seems highly unlikely—the taxpayers will once again foot the bill and be burdened with higher taxes than before.

It’s unfortunate that the federal government can’t take its own advice when it comes to spending. Perhaps the Office of Financial Education should be directing its message toward the federal government and not the American people.

The flap in Europe about the cartoons depicting Muhammad caused a staggering amount of political correctness, even in the U.S. Here is the latest example, this time from two bookstores who are refusing to carry a magazine that has some of the cartoons printed in it:

BUFFALO, N.Y. — Borders and Waldenbooks stores will not stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it contains cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked deadly protests among Muslims in several countries.

“For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority,” Borders Group Inc. spokeswoman Beth Bingham said Wednesday.

The magazine, published by the Council for Secular Humanism in suburban Amherst, includes four of the drawings that originally appeared in a Danish newspaper in September, including one depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban with a lit fuse.

Certainly these stores have a right to decide what they do and do not want to run, and they are exercizing that right in this situation. Having said that, the reasons they are giving—”the safety and security of our customers and employees”—is extremely interesting and eye-opening. Perhaps the stores were afraid they would face something similar to what happened over in Europe? After all, it’s a bit of an understatement to say that many Muslims didn’t exactly take a peaceful approach when objecting to and protesting the cartoons.

“Zebra killings.” That’s the title of the latest post on the Chronicles Magazine blog. In it, author Roger McGrath complains that whenever whites commit crimes against blacks, the incidents receive exceptional amounts of media coverage. Meanwhile, according to McGrath, for every violent crime whites commit against blacks, blacks commit 13 against whites.

What are “zebra killings”? They were a series of murders throughout California, and resulted in 15 dead and nine injuried in the San Francisco area alone. More than 70 people may have been murdered state-wide. Writes McGrath:

The victims were selected for one reason only: They were white. The Zebra perpetrators were Death Angels, a group of Black Muslims determined to exterminate the white race. They were awarded “wings” for their murders. White children were considered the most valuable targets, followed by white women, and then white men. Black Muslims subscribe to a theology of black supremacy—something rarely mentioned by the media when describing Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Whites are “blue-eyed devils,” an evil race created thousands of years ago by Yacub, a wicked black scientist.

You can read about some of the murders and the victims, although it gets to be pretty brutal stuff. What is McGrath’s point?

Most of the crimes, many horrific, are mentioned only briefly by the news media or go unreported. Nor do they find their way into textbooks. While nearly every American is familiar with the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas, very few know that whites were killed by blacks in a similar manner before and after the Byrd killing. Neither can more than a few Americans identify the Zebra killings of the 1970’s.