|
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
PC run amok, again: They've killed the Easter Bunny in MN...
In the capitol city of Minnesota, being St. Paul, the "protectors" of Separation of Church and State and the 1st amendment have targetted the Easter Bunny and had it's display, along with its easter eggs removed from the Capitol building as it is a sign of a christian holiday.
I may be off base here, but I don't recall the bible or any other historical document stating how Christ died so the Easter Bunny may have everlasting life in the kingdom of god.
I think this further lends creedence to sentiments held, that there is a strong and very vocal christophobic minority in America, who are so adament in maintaining anything religious, rather anything christian, is offensive, that they must target it and remove it from the public.
Now yes I realize this is just the easter bunny, but that is just it, it's the fucking easter bunny. It is true that Easter is celebrated world wide as a christian holiday, but there is the inescapable fact that easter was also and has long been celebrated as a pagan holiday as well, one that coincides with the coming of spring.
The easter bunny is completely secular, that why this is most upsetting. Some goons are taking a sweep at christianity by removing a symbol that is in no way christian. What's even more pathetic is the local governments cowardice here in caving to these chumps; get serious and grow a spine.
Makes me wonder what is slated for removal next in the arena of the public so as that no one is offended...
Quote:
What's the next offense down the bunny path?
JOE SOUCHERAY
The weird thing about the Easter Bunny getting kicked out of City Hall is the what's next factor. Everybody loves to play the what's next game. But nobody saw this one coming, not even if you were playing the what's next game.
For example, 20 years ago, when a city might have kicked a manger scene off public property, people said, "What's next, banning decorated Christmas trees?'' And then, sure enough, a few years went by and decorated Christmas trees were banned in places like government buildings. People said, "What's next, the word 'Christmas'?''
Well, a few years went by and sure enough, the word "Christmas," in public settings, was replaced by the word "holiday." In the most famous case in the newspaper business, we splashed "Happy Holidays!" across the front page of the Pioneer Press on Dec. 25, 1999. Imagine that. We are in the fact business, and on the day when it was a fact that it was Christmas, we used the word "holiday." We came to our senses, by the way, and on subsequent Christmases we have taken the bold step of saying Merry Christmas on Dec. 25 across the top of the front page.
But the game, the what's next factor, was thrown into hyperspeed with the expulsion of the Easter Bunny. Yes, the word "Easter" certainly refers to a Christian holiday, but not insidiously or offensively. What were we to think, that a non-Christian arriving at the City Council chambers to inquire about, say, a zoning variance, would turn on his heels and sink into depression because he stood no chance to build that porch off the back of the garage?
Most certainly the rabbit itself, the colored eggs, the basket and the bed of synthetic grass — probably an offshoot of a petroleum product — are not at all Christian symbols and apparently have their origination in pagan beliefs, if pagan beliefs are not oxymoronic.
So now try to play the what's next game. It has become infinitely more complicated than it used to be. The provocateurs, Tyrone Terrill in the case of the banned rabbit, act in the interests of protecting the sensibilities of non-Christians, but do so under the larger rubric of promoting diversity, except, of course, if the diversity includes … well, you get the idea. The rules of the what's next game are changing on the fly.
If, for example, an arrangement of a basket, a bunny, some eggs and a sign could offend non-Christians, as Terrill claimed, we are fated to be walking on pins and needles.
None of this is in the Constitution. The First Amendment, it seems, was designed specifically to avoid this kind of thinking, not endorse it. Yet, over the years, those who intend to save us from ourselves have cowered behind constitutional language that does not exist.
So where are we? Well, we have the "don't worry about it" crowd, but they are of no help. We have a human rights commissioner who won't return telephone calls and defend himself. We are left to guess what's next, and I don't think you can get crazy enough. I had a fellow e-mail me to wonder whether it would be found offensive to bring a turkey sandwich to work at City Hall after Christmas because turkey is symbolically regarded as a Christmas dinner.
It has thoroughly seeped into the American consciousness — it's still OK to have an American consciousness, isn't it? — that we are not to offend non-Christians, even if Christians are offended in the process.
The only thing I want to know that nobody seems able to answer is what the point of all this is. If Terrill did the right thing, then he did the right thing as a part of a larger pattern of behavior, that more and similar prohibitions must be enforced. Where does that lead us? To a better place?
And if you applaud his efforts, just wait. You haven't played the what's next game long enough.
In the short run, I wouldn't bring a ham sandwich to City Hall after Easter.
|
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinci...s/14182629.htm
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
|