Words Have Meaning?

I found a tidbit this morning which provides a warning for every thinking person. From Harvard, that hallmark of higher education, comes an illustrative bit of conversation. The issue in point is the assignment of specified swimming hours for female Muslim students to accommodate Sharia law. It seems under that doctrine, females are not allowed to use public swimming pools and workout rooms in the presence of men. To respect their belief, they have assured their privacy by implementing special times for use of the facilities.

When questioned about the new policy of banning other students from the use of the pool, Harvard spokesman Bob Mitchell reportedly said: “No, no, we’re permitting them to work out in an environment that accommodates their religion.”

The essence of the reporters response was; “by banning all men from the facility, right?”

“It’s not banning. We’re allowing, we’re accommodating people.”

Apparently now the meaning of “allow” and “banning” have become synonymous. It would seem that Harvard’s reputation for academic excellence permits them to become the arbiter of revised definition. Let’s hope this practice is limited to interpretation of Sharia law. This exercise in political correctness would be funny if it were not so prevalent in society. When any so-called improvement in human relations requires “new think” and “new speak” we are collectively on a slippery slope. Mr. Orwell covered this extremely well in his revealing book, 1984.

The issue raises other questions as well. How do they get to the pool? Since they are forbidden to drive themselves one assumes they must be driven there by males of a suitable relationship – father, brother, husband, etc. Must they continue, in the absence of men, to wear the ever present burkka while splashing about? No, I don’t think I should even go there. There is absolutely no question in my mind that swimming in a burkka would provide some valuable exercise.

We may now add this matter to the ever growing pile of accommodation we make for our Muslim brethren. Foot washers in airports, no booze carried in taxis, no free-speech cartoons, a dual legal system allowing tribal murder of innocent young women and polygamy are just a few of the “accommodations” we have either implemented or have been seriously proposed.

Inasmuch as most of the 1.2 billion, that’s with a “b”, Muslims are not that far removed from routine use of stone tools are they the ones who should dictate the rules of our country? We live in a highly diverse society, unique in the world, which has managed to rise up as the model for life and government on the planet. While homogenization is vital to maintaining the peace and tranquility of our peoples; we should guard against allowing any single group from dominating the process.

That’s just my opinion; I could be wrong.

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon