Harlow!! Really, the show is over, stop it already.
The actions of FM smarks of a desperate drowning person clutching at anything, even pulling down a fellow human being to escape inevitable fate.
Emotions were high-strung, with each side strongly convinced of their ideals and beliefs, and adament refusal to connect with the other side for a sensible, logical exchange of ideas.
Obviously, a certain broadsheet certainly did no favours to one of the sides by simply presenting the differences in opinions as that of mere moral tug-of-war between the 2 sides. Snide adjectives, describing the team as consisting of “born-again christians” when they had steadfastly denied pushing their religious beliefs, and sensationalising the entire event, even updating the saga repeatedly on the front page of what was essentially a squabble within a group is rather improper journalist behaviour of a respected broadsheet.
However, it seems to be that FM, a self-described born-again christian seems tangently off the mark of decent logical behaviour. What does it mean “to teach ignorant people” and “sexually challenged”? Such euphamisims do no justice to a ex-Dean of the Law College. Really, if a person does not have the slightest inch of decency and respect for others in her, then she obviously cannot understand why she has received so much bad press, despite her self-convicted good intentions to save young children from the depraved inmoralities of those she so feared would corrupt the next generation.
For those with strong religious beliefs, separating black from white, and wrong from right is easy as the flock is well-preached to by their clergy. However, it does not mean that those without strong religious beliefs are necessarily lesser in morality. Just as there are ulamas who preach violence against non-believers, there are clergys exposed as sexually abusing their young believers. Nobody has the monopoly to claim moral high ground over another group, especially when the society is non-homogeneous. Perhaps morality was more easily enforced in Victorian or Edwardian England where the state and state religion were one.
Then again, what is right and what is wrong? Societal norms, more than anything, and supplemented by religious beliefs help shape a society's behavior. Japanese societal norms, and the main Shinto beliefs, probably meant that Japanese are relatively subdued when they visit their shrines. They also wash their hands and rinse their mouths before entering any shrine. Constrast this with taoist Chinese in China. Temple visits are generally boisterious occassions with liberal burning of joss. No washing up is required before entering the temples, and shoes do not need to be removed. Are the Japanese a better people than the Chinese because of their differences? Not necessarily so, because societal expectations in both societies are different.
The progress of females in many societies is also a good indication of how societal norms shape people's behaviour. Females used to not be able to vote, work outside the home and were highly restricted in their dressings and behaviour. However, societal norms have changed in many societies, such that many no longer bat an eyelid over working women who have successfully climbed their corporate ladder.
Perhaps what I just want to express is that instead of expressing her fears in such illogical, offensive manner, FM ought to have more faith in her fellow countrymen in rejecting the overt promotion of the idea she is so much against. Societal norms do and will shape society's behaviour. Should a minority group elect to further their agenda before the rest of the society is ready for the change, they would likely find few and little supporters for their cause. The saga has indeed shown FM as much that while (I believe) many from the other side do identify with her fears, they have sent a strong signal that the manner in which FM advanced her fears is objectable.
If you ask me what FM should have done, I would say “Engagement” is key to expressing her fear in a respectful and logical manner.
And well, since moi so forgotfully neglected to post any pictures on SaffronSaris's birthday, here are 4 scrumptious cakes, 1 for each year in blogland! 
and 平等院, although regrettably, again due to lack of time, I was not able to complete the entire 4km 拝見route. It would have taken me at least 5 hours!
The day was cloudy and cold, as I grumbled to the lady collecting admission fees about the sudden cold snap. She merely looked resigned and commented the mercury started dipping the day before.
法隆寺 is one important Buddhist site during the 奈良 period and the grounds were certainly impressive. However, I can't help but compare my experiences visiting 奈良 in 2006. Is it something about the shrines being World Heritage Sites or just 奈良 people that they appear more brusque than other Japanese I've come into contact with?
