First up, the controversy of Carver Elementary School. As noted earlier here, there are over 100 Sudanese Muslim students attending Carver...a public school in the San Diego Unified School District:
Point in fact...the memo from the San Diego School District states that the Muslim students are allowed to pray during "non-instructional" time. There is a lunch period from 12:00pm to 12:50pm at Carver Elementary. Wouldn't this be an OK time for these Muslim students to get their prayer on? Or is Islam so rigid that if the students miss the proper positioning of the sun, that these students risk the ire of allah? Funny, I don't seem to remember Hakeem Olojuwon calling time out in the middle of a Rockets game so he could pray...and allah never smote him at half court.
Now on one point (and I can't believe I am doing this) I actually agree with Ibrahim Hooper. Students of all faith should be allowed to pray. However to set aside a full hour of what should be instructional time (to segregate students by faith and gender for an hour of prayer) is wrong. That is approximately 200 hours of "instructional" time each year that my tax dollars support.
Of course since this involves the encroachment of our public schools by religious zealots, the ACLU has been quick to respond:
To complete the O'Reilly doubleheader (so to speak), last night O'Reilly spoke up on the San Diego Padres' decision to have a gay "pride" night on the same night as a give-away night for kids:
By the way, Sandy Rios, baseball doesn't have a "halftime".
Full disclosure. I had plans to attend that game and was about to purchase tickets when I heard of the planned pride "festivities." I cancelled those plans when I found out that it would be "pride" night.
I have no problem with the gay men's choir singing the national anthem before a game. I have no problem with a homosexual group purchasing a block of tickets to a game...the San Diego Padres have accommodated all groups wishing to purchase tickets.
My problem is this. The gay "pride" group specifically chose this night out of all nights to make a statement. There is a gay "pride" weekend coming up and no doubt this group wanted exposure for their upcoming event. What better way to do it than by pitting their group night up against a giveaway night for children?
Something else. The San Diego Union covered the controversy in Monday's paper. Curiously however, they didn't send a regular city beat reporter. They sent Scott LaFee...their anti-Christian evolution propagandist/science "reporter". I wonder why:
Boycott of gay pride event at Padres game fizzles
By Scott LaFee
As boycotts go, yesterday's protest at Petco Park flopped – like the hats.Objecting to the confluence of two promotions at last night's Padres game – “Pride Night,” a group event for local gays and lesbians, and a team giveaway of floppy hats to children 14 and younger – several Christian and conservative groups called for a public protest and boycott of the game.
The San Diego Police Department reported no unusual activity or arrests related to the protest.
The lack of problems contrasted with the back-and-forth barbs exchanged before the game on both sides of the debate about whether it was wise to have the floppy-hat giveaway on Pride Night.
What LaFee missed in his "in-depth" reporting was what the O'Reilly segment showed...the "pride" contingent demonstrating and practicing their values...right in front of thousands of kids who were there for their hats and a ballgame. Of course Ron deHart doesn't see it that way:
Local gay leaders responded with puzzlement, dismay and some anger. “We're talking about a baseball game. That's all this is,” said Ron deHarte, executive director of San Diego Pride, which had purchased 1,000 tickets to yesterday's game, then advertised them on the group's Web site as “Out at the Park with the San Diego Padres, an official San Diego Pride event.”
“Huge numbers of gay and lesbian families go to baseball games with their kids every day,” he said. “We go because we're fans. What these (objecting groups) don't seem to understand is that there are children at every Padres game and there are gays there, too. To suggest that it's anything more than a baseball game is a ridiculous argument from the Dark Ages.”
OK Ron, if all you are talking about is a baseball game, then why the signs? Why the demonstrations? Why the groups of men kissing men and women kissing women? If by your assertion, gays go to ballgames "all the time", then why don't I see similar behavior at those games?
And I have been to over a thousand major league baseball games. Add in NBA and college basketball, NFL and college football games, NHL hockey and other miscellaneous sporting events, and you can double that number. And you know what? I have NEVER witnessed men kissing men and women kissing women at any of those.
I would think that if it was "just a ballgame", that Dehart's group could have kept their urges in check and left their signs at home. But of course, we all know what the real agenda was that night.
BTW...the San Diego Padres were in a tough spot. I don't agree with O'Reilly that they were "stupid". Had they denied the sale of tickets to the "pride" group, then the ACLU would have been on their doorstep. Knowing that the local media would support the gay agenda, they took the path of least resistance.
Next year? Somehow I believe the Padres will see this coming and try to barter a compromise.
3 comments:
My husband thought that whole thing was blown out of proportion. My dad, (a retired Navy chaplain ordained in the Assemblies of God denomination), was concerned after buying the tickets for his son-in-law and grandkids and hearing that the Padres were having Gay Pride night. He wondered how much of a "gay pride" event it was going to be. My husband said it was NOT being billed as Gay Pride night and that it would be like any other night at the ballpark.
Except for what my 16-year-old daughter described as, "a bunch of maniacs screaming at us outside the stadium, 'Do you know what they're doing to your children? They're pedophiles!'" and other gems of wisdom, it was like any other night at the ballpark.
Well...it might have been for your 16-year old daughter.
But for those sitting in sections 301-311, it was anything but. Were the signs and the displays of same-sex affection necessary?
The "boycott" was unneccesary. It drew more attention to the gay agenda, and the "boycotters" were portrayed as intolerant bigots by the local media.
It sounds like my family's experience wasn't impacted as much as others'. Apart from my dad's concern over how much "gayness" would be on display, and people yelling insults against gays outside the park, both my husband and daughter had the overall sense that it was a typical visit to the Padres.
I wasn't there but it seems that we so often get a sensationalized version of events from the media that it's not hard for me to picture it being a minor blip as far as life experiences go. I have to observe that my husband is an artist and we used to live on the edge of Hillcrest so I'm commenting with some experience behind my words.
I read the other day that there's a Simpson's episode where some gay people are staging a gay pride parade, yelling, "We're here, we're queer--deal with it!" and Lisa Simpson says, "We know! We know! You do this every year!"
Post a Comment