It's funny how everything in life seems to separate itself into groups. There are the obvious ones: men and women; adults and children; cats and dogs. But then there are the not so obvious ones. I have a co-worker who pointed out that moms are like democrats and dads are like republicans. Moms keep giving you second chances, and they tend to see their babies as victims rather than as guilty. Dads, on the other hand, tend to implement a more 'tough love' attitude. They tend to want to cut the apron strings as soon as possible, and drop you into the deep end of the pool because life is tough, and the sooner you find that out the better. I get that. The analogy, and the separation, works for me.
There was one unexpected separation that I never would have guessed, however, that occurred in Congress this past month. On February 14th, Roger Clemens and his one-time trainer Brian McNamee testified before a congressional committee. Tough questions were asked of both men. Rep. Cummings started off by repeatedly reminding Clemens that he was under oath, and to speak up loudly, nearly to the point of badgering the man. Rep. Waxman, during his long questioning, kept the pressure on Clemens. At one point, one of Clemens' lawyers tried to interject several times, but Waxman effectively cut him off each time. But McNamee got a grilling as good as Clemens did. Rep. Burton called McNamee a liar, and told him that his lying was "disgusting". Wow. Congressmen standing up for morals and ethics.
But wait. As I read over the testimonies given, and the questions asked, I noticed a strange pattern, a separation of people. Democrats tended to rake Clemens over the coals, while Republicans tore McNamee a new one. Hmmm. Henry Waxman, democrat from California: Clemens 0; McNamee 1. Elijah Cummings, democrat form Maryland: Clemens 0; McNamee 2. Dan Burton, republican from Indiana: Clemens 1; McNamee 2. And then there was Mark Souder, republican from Indiana, who stated that "it's better not to talk about the past" when Mark McGwire's hearing was brought up: Clemens 2; McNamee 2.
So, everything naturally falls into groups: hot drinks and cold drinks; meat and vegetables; hamburgers and hot dogs, congressmen and baseball players. Who knew?
The other day my husband told me that he'd heard that the Archbishop of the Church of England had suggested that Britain adopt Shari'a law. What, the uninitiated, the uninformed, and the indifferent may ask, is Shari'a law? Shari'a law is law that governs the behaviour of strict adherents to the Islamic faith. At first I thought my husband was joking. I could understand if a prominent member of the Islamic faith, some scholarly imam should make this suggestion, especially if that imam is suggesting it be put into effect within an Islamic nation, such as Iraq. But the person making this suggestion is the leader of the Church of England, a prominent Christian church. And the country is Great Britain, land of the Magna Carta.
Can you imagine, if you are a woman, having to put on a burkha (a head, face and body veil) when you step off the plane upon your arrival at Heathrow airport? And what if, for the married British woman, your husband believes you are being 'rebellious', or otherwise contrary to him? Well, if speaking to you about your behaviour, and letting you sleep alone to think about your attitude do not rectify the problem, he is permitted to smack you around a bit. If you are found guilty of stealing, you may spend some time in jail, or you may end up having your hand or some other suitable body part amputated. That should make you think twice next time. And if you are a Muslim that has had a change of heart and decided to convert to some other religion, well, that's considered an apostasy, which is equivalent to treason, which is punishable by death.
This may all be well and good for the 1.6 million Muslims living in Britain (census as of 2001), but what about the other 97% of the population? Perhaps the British Hindus would like to implement their special laws. And what about the British Buddhists? Or, for those very few British Catholics that still reside in the realm of Shakespeare, perhaps the Pope should dictate the law of the land. Where does it all end? No. I think that British law, which has been on the cutting edge of justice since the 13th century, has sufficed quite nicely. I think that the Archbishop is suffering from a severe bout of political correctness, probably contracted from having his lips too close to some prominent imam's ass.
