I got some new glasses, finally. I have been waiting for these over-priced sight-fixers for months. Long story short, it has been a struggle finding the right frames, lenses, price, and place that accepts Care Credit. You can see from the picture the difference, cosmetically, from the older, black frame…the new ones are rimless (they’re also progressive bi-focals, too, because I’m getting old and decrepit).
When looking in the mirror at my new appearance, a deep and profound thought crossed my mind: “How would rimless glasses affected the secret identity of Superman?” You know what I am talking about, right? Superman had a clever, foolproof disguise which kept his identity from being discovered – glasses. Superman (a.k.a. Clark Kent), when not out saving the day in his jumpsuit and cape, wore a business suit and dark-rimmed glasses. That fooled everybody! Even the love of his life, Lois Lane, could make out with him without his glasses, only to totally not recognize him later at the office – it was the glasses. Amazing.
Now, consider for a moment, what if the styles had been different back then? If, let’s say, Superman had strolled into the local LensCrafters to purchase a pair of specs, what would he have done if all they had were rimless frames? What if, after a few decades of being Clark Kent, the styles changed and management at the news paper wanted him to upgrade his look? What would have happened if the crew from “What Not to Wear” (on TLC) were called in to do a makeover? Wow! That would have been interesting! I could just imagine Stacy and Clinton confronting him for the first time…
Clinton: Clark, we have been watching you with our hidden cameras for a few days, and you never change clothes. As a
Stacy and Clint
matter of fact, you disappear a lot, only to come back to work in the same clothes you always wear.Stacy: That’s right, Clark, and your coworkers have gotten together to do an intervention. They want you to change with the times.
Clinton: Yeah, Clark, you have got a look straight out of the 1940’s and it’s got to change. Let’s start right now.
Stacy: Clark, we have an appointment set for you with the Optomitrist to the stars, Franko Foofoo, and we are going to update your eyewear….here, let’s just imaging what you might look like, for instance, in a pair of Sillouette rimless frames…..let me just take those old, black ones………
Clinton: OMG!!!! It’s SUPERMAN! (whispering to Stacy, “I always thought he looked super in those tights.”)
Seriously, how crazy is it that just a pair of glasses would keep a famous person from being recognized by his closest friends? I mean, really? The truth about Superman’s identity should have been easy to see, even if he had worn a wig and a rubber nose. All the fans of Superman figured it out the first episode. Well, sometimes I wonder if the same sort of blindness to the obvious is what is wrong with most people today. I could site example after example until this article turned into a book the size of “War and Peace.” Instead of that, let me just share with you one example.
If you follow this link, http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12/afghan-women/addario-photography, you will see a picture of a poor woman in Afghanistan. Let me quote the caption beneath the picture…
The Wails of a Jailed Wife
A female inmate at a Mazar-e Sharif prison has just been released, prompting Maida-Khal, 22, to cry out because she is still trapped in her cell. When Maida-Khal was 12, she was married to a man of about 70 who was paralyzed. “I was so young, I couldn’t carry him because he was so heavy, so his brothers would beat me,” she recalls. When she asked for a divorce four years ago, she was imprisoned. “I am in jail because I don’t have a mahram [male guardian]. I can’t get a divorce, and I can’t leave prison without a man.” She says, with remarkable understatement, “I have had a difficult life.”
Is that not just horrible? What kind of law would allow a 22 year old girl to go prison because she wanted to get a divorce from an abuser, then keep her there indefinitely because she didn’t have a man? It’s called Sharia Law, and it’s coming to a courthouse near you!
Recently, there has been a lot of talk about allowing Sharia Law into our American courts. A case is being battled at this very moment (see link at bottom of page) between the people of Oklahoma and Muneer Awad, director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Oklahoma was the first state to say “no” to Sharia Law being considered, or worse, implemented in court. Muneer Awad said this was an affront to his religious rights. So, even though the people voted overwhelmingly, a judge put a hold on the results.
Alan Combs, the well-know Liberal spokesman, quoted in his blog a professor from the University of Oklahoma’s College of Law, Joseph Thai:
“There is no plausible danger of international law or Sharia law overtaking the legal system,” Thai said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. He said courts only consider international law when deciding issues involving a federal treaty, a business contract or a will that incorporates international law.
http://www.alan.com/2010/11/05/cair-seeks-injunction-on-oklahoma-vote-banning-sharia-law/
The problem with all of this is, however, akin to not recognizing Superman, in spite of his disguise. Many of us know the true intentions of those who want Sharia Law to be allowed in our courts. We can see through the horn-rimmed glasses and distinguish the face of terror and oppression. This is not a battle for equal rights and religious freedom. This is a fight for Western Culture, for Judeo-Christian ethics, for a Constitution that was based on the premise that “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” among them the right for women to not be treated as cattle, sex–slaves, and punching bags! For crying out loud, where’s Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem when you need them? What about Equal Rights?
Look again at that picture of the woman in Afghanistan. My heart literally breaks for her. Does the American system of law allow that kind of abuse? No, but Sharia Law does. Where in our Constitution does it state that a man can behead his wife or daughter, keep his daughter locked up, or kill a person for just embarrassing the family by converting to Christianity? Nowhere, but Sharia Law allows it. Who gives a flying prayer rug if this guy in Oklahoma is offended? I’m not! If he wants Sharia Law, then let him go to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia, etc. There, his view will be welcomed with open, manly arms (I’m just not sure the women are too thrilled about it).
The supporters of Sharia Law are walking around our country wearing Clark Kent’s glasses…
Who could it be?
They are saying, “I am not who you think I am. I am not trying to change your country or your culture. I don’t want this country to become a Muslim theocracy governed by Sharia Law, NO WAY! I like American apple pie just as much as you, friend. As a matter of fact I, too, think America is the greatest country in the world! I don’t want to change a thing.” Then, just when you think everything is going fine, the glasses come off, but it’s too late. The difference between Superman and Sharia is that Superman fought for “truth, justice, and the American way.” Sharia Law and it’s supporters follow a five-fold path that is anything but the Constitutional way.
In conclusion, you may think that I should give a “shout out” to all the “peaceful” Muslims out there who want to live in harmony with other Americans and people of all faiths, including Christians. You may think that I should admit Islam is a “peaceful and great religion” that has been “highjacked and perverted by terrorist.“ If that is what you want me to say, then let me say this, “You, too, would have believed Clark Kent was just a mild-mannered reporter.”
Look past the glasses, folks.
For further consideration, here’s an enlightening article from the Heritage Foundation, “The Real Impact of Sharia Law”: http://blog.heritage.org/?p=42257.
Story on the Oklahoma case: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/08/oklahomas-ban-shariah-law-blocked-critics-say-attorney-general-failed-respond/
The Recovering Legalist 