He should have claimed he was making "art".

With some humor I read the stories of the American sniper taking some shots at a copy of the Koran. For example SanDiego.com has this story which states:

The U.S. military said Sunday that it disciplined the sniper and removed him from Iraq after he was found to have used Islam's holy book for target practice May 9 in a predominantly Sunni area west of Baghdad. The book was found two days later by Iraqis on a firing range in Radwaniyah with 14 bullet holes in it and graffiti written on its pages, tribal leaders said.

This was such a serious offense that President Bush apologized to the Iraqi Prime Minister as was mentioned on Al-Iraqia television as reported at Yahoo News here. There is another wrinkle though as the story reports:

However, the Sunni Muslim Iraqi Islamic Party headed by Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi on Monday demanded government action against the soldier.

The desecration of the Koran was also strongly condemned by the Association of Muslim Scholars, which claims to represent more than 3,000 mosques, and which held both the US military and Iraqi government responsible.

It said the "heinous crime shows the hatred" that the US military and American leaders had for the Koran and the Muslim people.

It was a heinous crime? Have any of these members of the Association condemned the beheadings of Americans that took place in the past while we helped out their backward country? I think I need to research that. And it is so nice to see that people want to make a bigger deal about this than it deserves.

If only the sniper claimed he was doing "art" in the vein of "Piss Christ" which was photograph by Andres Serrano that depicted a crucifix submerged in a glass of Serrano's urine - Source was Wikipedia.

But oh well - in America we know what Art is...what is wrong with the Iraqis? We need to "modernize" their antiquated notions of reverence to 'sacred objects'. Maybe one day under President Obama.

OS

Follow up to California Gay Marriage ruling.

In my last post on the California Supreme Court overturning the voter approved ban on Gay Marriage I noted how really huge a cultural shift this is. Well Dennis Prager (as usual) says it better than I did over at Townhall.com.

Prager writes:

"Nothing imaginable -- leftward or rightward -- would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: ... And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision -- let alone the four compassionate justices -- acknowledge this ... This lack of acknowledgment -- or even awareness -- of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made."

"Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex."

This is required reading and as always, Prager is spot on. This is not about gay marriage or being anti-gay. It is about the price generations of our children and future generations will have to pay for what amounts to judicial arrogance, hubris and general tunnel vision and stupidity dealing with what is not a simple subject.

The full article can be found at Townhall.com.

OS

California Gay Ban Overturned

The Associated Press is in ecstasy (no pun intended) with the story that the voter-approved ban on gay marriage in California has been overturned by the California Supreme Court - story is here.

Quotes heard from supporters (from the story):

"I've been waiting for this all my life.."
"This is a life-affirming moment."
"This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."
"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law,"

In the opinion for the measure I saw this quote:

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation,"

So bring it on!!! I see no reason why men cannot have two wives (multiple wives - why stop at 2?), women cannot have many husbands, multiple partnerships (why keep it traditional - you can have a union with 2 men and 3 women right?). What is wrong with polygamy and what sort of argument can one make in support of a measure such as this and not for polygamy. The Court did not say the "loving and long-term committed relationship" has to be only with one individual. And by the way - what does committed mean? I think the court owes the people some clarity as to what these terms mean?

Finally, this decision makes no constraint over who can get married? Can a son marry his mother (certainly could be a "loving and long-term committed relationship"). And before any wackos write me and suggest something "strange and weird" why wouldn't a son "marry" his mother if she had no insurance and he wanted to get her covered under his plan? What's wrong with that?

This is a huge cultural change that a minuscule segment of society is causing with no thought to its overall implications. Rather the folks involved are (in my opinion) self centered and whiners and not willing to acknowledge that their sexual choice or orientation does not need validation from Government to give their life dignity or their relationship meaning. Every argument that is being made for same sex marriage can be made for all kind of deviant (yes deviant - or straying from the accepted norm - deal with it!!! - it is not homophobic to consider this point!) "marriages" and this has the capacity to totally destroy this country as we know it. Don't think so? Think of all the abuse that this "marriage" proposal and all associated issues can bring. How can companies survive when they are getting insurance requests from families consisting of 20 adults (hey they are all married?).

OS predicts it here - there will be a backlash and there will be eventually be serious damage to our country because of this. People need to shut the hell up and just live, not throw their sexuality problems out for Government to solve. America is not ready for this (and never will be) regardless of what Massachusetts and California think. Gay and Lesbians are going to learn quite quickly that a majority of Americans don't want to make their behavior a norm and will pass the laws to exercise that.

OS