Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (20567)	12/11/2002 7:16:05 AM
From: lorne	Respond to of 27666

Ban on Christmas leads to court fight Education halls get decked with legal action for alleged discrimination against Christians December 10, 2002 By Jon Dougherty A public-interest law firm has filed suit in federal court alleging that a "Holiday Displays" policy for New York City public schools is discriminatory against the Christian religion. In its suit, the Thomas More Law Center said the district's policy "unlawfully discriminates against Christians" because it "prohibits the display of [Christian] Nativity scenes" in public schools during Christmas, while it "expressly permits and encourages" the display of the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent during certain religious holidays and observances. Officials at the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based law center said the suit was filed today in the U.S. District Court for eastern New York on behalf of Andrea Skoros, who has two children in the city's public school system. Skoros and her children are Roman Catholics. Last year, a public school attended by Skoros' son displayed the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent, but no Nativity scene. School officials dismissed requests for display of the Nativity scene, said Brian Burch, a spokesman for the law center. The suit names the City of New York, Department of Education Chancellor Joel I. Klein, and "another school official" who was not identified by the law center. The center said NYC education officials claim the goal of the policy is "to promote understanding and respect for the diverse beliefs and customs relating to our community's observance of the winter holiday." Published accounts said the school district's written policy allows only "secular holiday symbols." "Such symbols include, but are not limited to, Christmas trees, Menorahs, and the Star and the Crescent," the policy states, according to CNSNews.com. "Holiday displays shall not appear to promote or celebrate any single religion or holiday. Therefore, any symbol or decoration which may be used must be displayed simultaneously with other symbols or decorations reflecting different beliefs or customs." NYC education officials did not respond to requests for comment before press time. Richard Thompson, lead attorney for the Thomas More Law Center, said the policy shows an "indifference" and "hostility" to Christians during their most holy season. "The policy relegates Christians to second-class citizens," said Thompson. "Forcing schools to only allow secular symbols for Christmas while allowing religious symbols for other religions' holiday observances shows a callous indifference and hostility toward Christians during one of their holiest seasons." The center's legal action follows criticism of the policy leveled against NYC schools last year by the Catholic League, the nation's largest Catholic civil-rights group. In December 2001, Catholic League President William Donohue criticized a memo issued by Dr. Fran Levy, principal of the Thomas Jefferson Magnet School of Humanities in Flushing, N.Y., directing teachers to bring religious symbols to school that represent Kwanzaa and the Islamic and Jewish religions. The memo did not include Christian symbols, with the exception of a Christmas tree, which Donohue said was a secular symbol. "It is outrageous that New York City public-school officials allow some religious symbols in the schools every December while banning others," Donohue said in a statement yesterday. "Catholics are sick and tired of being discriminated against by bureaucrats who tell us we should be satisfied with a Christmas tree in the schools. "All we want is parity with Jews and Muslims," he added. The Catholic League maintains that the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent are religious symbols rather than secular displays, and therefore the school district should permit displays of the Christian Nativity scene, which depicts the birth of Jesus. Thompson said the scope of the Christian religion in the U.S. merits attention, especially during this season. "It is ironic that a religion enjoying the largest following in this nation is consigned by the city of New York to a least-favored status," he said. "It's a shame that we have reached a point in our nation's history that 'respect for diverse beliefs and customs' has come to mean discrimination against Christians – at Christmastime, no less." worldnetdaily.com

To: lorne who wrote (20567)	12/11/2002 9:07:38 AM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Respond to of 27666

How the Saudis buy U.S. friends Daniel Pipes National Post Wednesday, December 11, 2002 The news that the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States possibly funded the 9/11 hijackers prompted two responses: The Bush administration pooh-poohed it while leading U.S. senators expressed outrage. This difference in response stems from a Saudi-induced "culture of corruption" that pervades the upper reaches of America's executive branch but that does not extend to the Congress. It begins with none other than the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who hinted at the problem as he boasted of his success at cultivating powerful Americans. "If the reputation ... builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office, you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office." This is precisely what happens. In fact, it's so bad that Mohammed Al-Khilewi, a Saudi diplomat who defected to the United States in 1994, put it this way: "When it comes to the Saudi-American relationship, the White House should be called the 'White Tent.' " Ex-Washington hands paid off by the Kingdom include such figures as Spiro T. Agnew, Jimmy Carter, Clark Clifford, John B. Connally and William E. Simon. A Washington Post account lists other former officials, including George H.W. Bush, who have found the Saudi connection "lucrative"; and it quotes a Saudi source saying that the Saudis have contributed to every presidential library in recent decades. Many ex-U.S. ambassadors to Riyadh have received substantial sums of money since John C. West set the gold standard by funding his personal foundation with a half-million-dollar donation from a single Saudi prince, plus more from other Saudis, soon after he left the Kingdom in 1981. Hume Horan, himself a former U.S. ambassador to the Kingdom and the great and noble exception to this pattern, explains about his former colleagues: "There have been some people who really do go on the Saudi payroll, and they work as advisors and consultants. Prince Bandar is very good about massaging and promoting relationships like that. Money works wonders, and if you've got an awful lot of it, and a royal title -- well, it's amusing to see how some Americans liquefy in front of a foreign potentate, just because he's called a prince." Surveying this problem for The National Review, Rod Dreher found the number of former-ambassadors who push a pro-Saudi line "startling" and concluded that "no other posting pays such rich dividends once one has left it, provided one is willing to become a public and private advocate of Saudi interests." The National Post looked at five former U.S. ambassadors and concluded "they have carved out a fine living insulting their own countrymen while shilling for one of the most corrupt regimes on Earth." If you closed your eyes while listening to their apologies, it went on, "you would think the person talking held a Saudi passport." The expectation of a payoff even corrupts U.S. government operations in Saudi Arabia. Timothy Hunter, a former U.S. diplomat in Saudi Arabia turned whistleblower, reports that U.S. officials there are "so preoccupied with extraneous duties -- entertainment packages for high-level visitors, liquor sales and handling baggage for VIP visitors," that they have scant time to devote to the proper concerns of an embassy. The heart of the problem is an all-too-human one: Americans in official positions of authority bend the rules, break with standard procedures and alter policies for reasons of personal gain. The effect of this massive pre-emptive bribing by Saudis is to render America's executive branch quite incapable of dealing with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the farsighted and disinterested manner that U.S. national interests require. That leaves Congress with the urgent responsibility to fix things. It must take steps to ensure that the Saudi revolving-door syndrome described here be made illegal. That means that for 10 years or more after having extensive contacts with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, an official may not directly or indirectly receive funds from that source. Only with this sort of change can U.S. citizens regain confidence in their officials dealing with one of the world's more important states. Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Militant Islam Reaches America (W.W. Norton). This column derives from a longer analysis in the current issue of The National Interest. © Copyright 2002 National Post