The Evil Power of Christmas Trees on non-Christians

Merely being in a room with a small Christmas tree causes bad feelings among non-Christians, and even causes Christians to feel "guilty." That's the conclusion of a recent Canadian study on the effects of Christmas tree displays.

Researchers at Simon Fraser University in Canada, found non-Christians feel less self-assured and have fewer positive feelings if a Christmas tree was in the room.

They displayed a single 12 inch tree in room and asked the participants, 77 Christians, and 57 "non-believers," to "fill in questions about themselves" with the tree either in or out of the room. It would be pretty interesting to see exactly what questions were asked. Naturally the researchers in question had no problem drawing sweeping conclusions based on their one highly dubious study of 132 people.

I think if people do care about making a whole range of different kinds of people feel included and respected, then we can make some small changes that would go a long way toward creating a more multicultural or inclusive society.

Really? Why don't we examine every single public display, see what kind of transient feelings they inspire and then base our policies off of those results? I know when I see some piece of lousy public artwork I certainly don't feel included. I guess we need to do away with public art. And since when do displays of any kind have to make people feel "included and respected"? Many displays obviously appeal to certain segments of the population and not to others. That's going to happen, particularly in a large diverse country. Without seeing the questions it's impossible to say for sure, but the evidence suggests that these researchers conducted a study looking for a result to support their preexisting biases.

Muslim MasterCard

An Islamic financial firm in Toronto is launching a new credit card for Muslims, called the iFreedom Plus Mastercard. It circumvents the Islamic religious proscription against paying interest.

holders load up their card with cash in advance, up to $6,000. Each purchase draws down on the account without accruing interest.

They make money on charging 95 cents per transaction, and from the membership fee of $50 for two years. Since it uses your own money in advance, there is no need for a credit check.

It may be targeted at Muslims, but it sounds like a pretty good idea that might appeal to a wider spectrum of people. It appears to be an improved version of a secured credit card. The fees are pretty low, and there's no interest. They should market it to everyone, not just Muslims. There are plenty of people out there with lousy credit that have trouble getting a regular card, and who  could probably benefit from this product.

What's Next, a Giant Bust of Hitler or Stalin?

Richmond, British Columbia has a giant 4,000 kg piece of public art described as,

the sculpture suggests grace and balance, with a tiny figure staying atop a giant head with the help of a long pole. Upon greater reflection, the face is that of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, and the balancer is a tiny, "feminized" Mao Zedong

Naturally many residents are annoyed and offended. Public art advocates on the other hand,

urge the public to see a deeper meaning in the reflective sculpture.

Here's the problem with that sort of thinking. Despite the meaning of the art, what you actually see is a giant head of Lenin. Who wants a giant head of Lenin in their town?

I'd have no problem viewing this piece of artwork in a museum, but I think it's understandable that many residents would oppose having this sculpture in a public square. The article contains a picture. See what you think.

Canadian Police Apologize for Arresting Radical Islamists

There's been much talk lately about political correctness with regard to offending Muslims, in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings. As bad as things are here in the U.S., they are worse elsewhere. Canadian police arrested two men in Windsor, Ontario because of connections with a "radical Islamist group" across the border in Detroit. During the arrest of the alleged Islamists, one of their wives was patted down by an officer. Therefore the police felt the need to issue a news release saying,

"It was never the intention for Windsor police officers to offend or embarrass the families of our Islamic community," wrote Windsor police Chief Gary Smith in a news release Thursday. "The actions taken did cause embarrassment and did offend their religious beliefs. I sincerely apologize to the families and the Islamic community."

That's just pitiful. I wonder if any other "communities" get written public apologies when police offend their delicate cultural and religious sensibilities? What about all the Canadian citizens who are probably offended and embarrassed that the police would go so far as to issue such and apology? Fortunately the police union at least is speaking out.

"Usually, when you make an apology, that means something was wrong. In my opinion, nothing went wrong here.

"I believe the officers were doing everything they're entitled to do under the law. I believe they did it professionally. I don't see an issue here."

Imagine that. He thinks that the police are within their rights to search the immediate associates of suspected terrorist when making an arrest. Maybe the police chief should issue another apology for the insensitivity of the police union.

Canadian Muslims For Burqa Ban

A Canadian Islamic group, the Muslim Canadian Congress, has called for a ban on the burqa in that country.

‘In Canada we recognize the equality of men and women. We want to recognize gender equality as an absolute. The burqa marginalizes women.’

That's Farzana Hassan, the group's spokesperson. Hassan said that burqa wearing has risen in popularity among Canada's 800,000 Islamic inhabitants because of "extremist Muslims.'

According to the article, the Muslim Canadian Congress is a small group with 300 members.  It's unclear how representative they are of mainstream Muslim thought in Canada. But it's nice to see a Muslim organization of whatever size taking a strong stand against an instrument of female subjugation.

More Legalism, This Time in Canada

Canada's public safety minister spoke out today against the legalistic efforts to cripple anti-terror measures.  

he fears for the government's ability to fight terrorism in light of "an increasingly complex legal environment" in which judges are no longer deferring to the government in its efforts to deport foreign suspects.

Instead of taking precautions against suspicious foreigners, new interference by the courts grants extensive rights to alien suspects, preventing the government from taking action to protect national security.

We see that same attitude here in the U.S. among terrorist rights supporters. It rests on what I consider the false notion that the rights of a state should also extend to foreign residents, in defiance of both traditional practice and common sense. One of the principal roles of government is to act against foreign threats, and to protect the security of the nation and its people. Non-citizens present in a state are there, or should be there, at the pleasure of the host state. In a situation in which a non-citizen is suspected of being a threat, the state should err on the side of protecting its own citizens, not the alien. The idea that a judge can block the government from deporting a non-citizen deemed to be a threat, perverts the role of government and places the interests of an alien above the interests of the citizens it is supposed to serve.

Why Do Liberal Christians hate Israel?

There's a great article by Margaret Wente in the Canadian Globe And Mail called, "How Israel became South Africa."

It's a bad old world out there. Tens of thousands are being raped in war-torn eastern Congo. In Sudan, a woman faces 40 lashes for daring to wear pants. The Iranians have brutally suppressed a peaceful uprising and shot protesters in the streets. The tyrants who run Burma have sentenced the brave Aung San Suu Kyi to more house arrest. 

So which evil regime finds itself in the crosshairs of Canada's largest church? Israel, of course.

The far left in general despises Israel, and that also applies to many liberal Christian denominations. As Wente notes, they see in Israel their cherished narrative of  "of Western racism, occupation and colonialist oppression." Since Israel is allied with the U.S., that makes it even worse. It's not just an evil Western colonial state oppressing the poor peace-loving Palestinians, it's a tool of the most evil state of all, the U.S. Hatred of Israel is often combined with anti-Americanism.

Along with liberal Christian groups, Wente also notes some other leftist organizations who are obsessed with Israel. One example is pretty funny.

In Montreal, gay and lesbian activists promise that this weekend's Pride Parade will include a protest against Israel's “racist apartheid” policies. (Israel is the only country in the Middle East that believes in civil rights for homosexuals, an irony that seems to have eluded them.)

I wonder what would happen to people holding a gay pride parade in Gaza?

U.S. Ship Saved From Pirates

There was another piracy incident today involving a U.S. merchant ship, this time in the Gulf of Aden. Fortunately, three Canadian naval helicopters, along with an Italian one, intervened. The pirates were forced to surrender and taken prisoner by the Italians. Hopefully they won't just be released.

Ideally the helicopters would have just sunk the pirate boat. Apparently it fired an RPG at another merchant ship, so it was clearly identified as a pirate. If NATO naval forces would simply start sinking pirate boats caught in the act, the pirate problem would quickly diminish. Captured pirates should of course be hanged, but I know we're just too civilized to do that anymore. We'd rather release them, provide them with unwarranted legal "rights," or even allow them to sue their captors. But in any case, U.S. thanks are in order to Canada and Italy for their intervention and protection of an American vessel.

Should the U.S. Invest in Canadian Oil?

There was an interesting op-ed Saturday in Canada's National Post entitled, "U. S. needs Alberta's oil sands." According to the authors

For an investment of at least US$200-billion, the Americans, Asians or both could underpin projects that would guarantee the production of about four million barrels a day of non-OPEC oil from the oil sands.

They argue that the oil sands currently aren't viable with private investment, and need a large injection of government support. That sounds strangely familiar. Since the bulk of their oil production goes to the United States, they make a case that the U.S. should provide the needed investment.

I'm not sure of the exact details of the situation, and I'm inherently skeptical of any call for government investment in industry, let alone foreign industry. But if 200 to 300 billion or so could really guarantee us four million barrels a day from Canada, I'd rather spend the money there than on most of what is contained in the bloated, wasteful stimulus package, or on more bailouts. Naturally of course, it won't be an either/or situation, since increased spending never seems to be offset by spending cuts in other areas.