The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Assimilation Breakdown

4.25.07 @ 12:01AM

UNDERCOVER ANGELS
Re: Mary Grabar's Little Girls in Headscarves:

I'd imagine more than a few letters will be written to the editor about the "Little Girls in Headscarves" piece by Mary Grabar, and I'm guessing those will be of three types. Those who fully support Grabar's thinking, those who think she's politically incorrect and needs a good dose of multicultural thinking, and those, like me, who think that it's none of her business. As Christians, my wife and I have certain standards that we hope our daughter will follow. If she chooses not to when she's an adult, that's her choice. If she chooses not to while she's still a child, we'll just have to muddle through the same as parents and children always have. But when Grabar ends with "It may be too late for the woman swathed in black, but we need to reach her daughter," I can't help but wonder, who is "we," and will I be able to keep "them" out of my home? The beauty and horror of our great nation is that such decisions rightly, constitutionally, belong to adults and parents. If Professor Grabar wants to help others assimilate, she'd best focus on fostering a culture worth adopting and defending. Perhaps instead of ranting against other cultures and multiculturalism, she should put more thought into her own culture.
-- Christopher B. Hayes

I, too, wonder how Muslim oppression of girls and women is tolerated here in a country which "invented" the worth of the individual. I left Florida and now live in North Carolina where the sight of one of these poor creatures is an occasion for whispering and stares, they are so rare.

In Florida my liberal Democrat friends offered a progressive's explanation. It was that "just because you choose to live in America doesn't mean you become an American. It is not realistic to expect immigrants to adopt our language, culture, mores, or religious beliefs."

I think this is how the United States will end. Detroit will become a Muslim city state ruled by sharia and fatwa. The West Coast will become a province of China; New England will become one large, collective farm that provides milk for Ben & Jerry's. The South and Southwest will become part of Mexico known as Provincia de Dinero. The United States will be no more, but its values will go on in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and Alaska.

But, as always, I digress. There is a much simpler explanation of why little Arab girls and women were their hideous clothes: if they don't their husbands and fathers will kill them.
-- Jay Molyneaux
Denver, North Carolina

Several years ago (or was it in the 1980s?), there was a controversy here in Hoosierland between many fundamentalist parents and some of the reading requirements for English some Junior High Schools. The parents objected to the "colorful" and sometimes blasphemous language in some of these assigned books along with some of the more "unedifying" plotlines. These parents were not asking their children to be excused from schoolwork. Instead, they requested alternate book selections for their children. They did not demand that children of other parents also be required to read to same alternates as their children. For those who did not have a problem, the original reading plan could stand. What these fundamentalists were asking was a civil accommodation so that they may follow the laws of their religion.

As one would imagine, the faculty and school board reacted rather forcefully and insisted either these children complete the assignments as planned or receive "F"s -- it was their choice. One teacher was interviewed stating with some self-satisfaction that it was time these children get broken out of their restrictive, small-minded world of their parents -- the undercurrent being it was her right as a teacher to do so.

One's first reaction is at the apparent discrimination in accommodating the religion of immigrants and not the religion of some citizens. However, on deeper reflection, the discrimination as such should have gone in the other direction. Immigrants must make some accommodation to their new country in order to assimilate and share in the common bread of one's neighbors. Whatever can be said for the length of dresses, covering one's face is offensive except under unusual circumstances. For all our faults, we do not accept restricting our young girls to be servants and we hold it as a social obligation to bring up all children to mature into a life of freedom. On the other hand, our fundamentalist neighbors are a part of American life -- many if not most of us have similar Christian forbearers on our family trees. We may not agree with them -- in fact, we may be keeping as much distance from them as possible -- but they are recognizably American.

For myself, I do not consider anyone educated if they do not understand (I am not saying necessarily agree with) the theory of evolution. I also believe it is impossible to understand Western Civilization without an understanding of Catholicism. In a similar fashion, one cannot understand the founding of the United States or American history without an understanding of Protestantism. Nevertheless, if we are going to listen to those who object to a literary classic because it may offend a minority group, then we should at least lend the same generosity to those who fear some work of literature may offend their God.
-- Mike Dooley

What a wonderful article! I really enjoyed the arguments, and look forward to using them in debates!
-- Anne Powers

CARD UNCHECKED
Re: Doug Bandow's Secret Ballots for Me But Not for Thee:

Doug Bandow is quite right in arguing that the "card check" system that organized labor is pushing is an open invitation to deception and coercion of workers to get them to sign.

His closing comment that there isn't any good reason why union representation has to be a matter of majority rule is extremely important. Nowhere in American law can an individual be compelled to accept another as his agent, except when it comes to labor. A true "Employee Freedom of Choice Act" would repeal the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and allow individuals to choose to join, or not to join, labor unions based on their own beliefs. In a free society, no one would be coerced into accepting representation he didn't want. Getting rid of the NLRA would also have the virtue of eliminating another bit of governmental coercion -- that employers are compelled to bargain with certified unions and only with them.

The backers of this legislation aren't the least bit interested in freedom.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Business, Religion, Catholicism, Protestantism, Books, Constitution, Law, Alaska, Unions