This is incredible -- Chicago officials object to a Christmas festival accepting a film about Christmas as a sponsor, for fear that non-Christians will be offended!

A public Christmas festival is no place for the Christmas story, the city says. Officials have asked organizers of a downtown Christmas festival, the German Christkindlmarket, to reconsider using a movie studio as a sponsor because it is worried ads for its film "The Nativity Story" might offend non-Christians.

New Line Cinema, which said it was dropped, had planned to play a loop of the new film on televisions at the event. The decision had both the studio and a prominent Christian group shaking their heads.

I wholeheartedly echo this comment by a spokesman for Willow Creek Church, a large church in the Chicago area.

"The last time I checked, the first six letters of Christmas still spell out Christ."

And so do the first six letter of "Christkindlmarket" -- which I believe means "Christ Child Market" in German.

Posted by: Greg at 03:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

Now I don't make a secret of the fact that I am not a big fan of Islam. Indeed, it concerns me that more Muslims and Islamic institutions don't stand up and take a hardline stance against terrorism. And I certainly opposed the election of Keith Ellison, a Muslim, to the US Congress -- though my reason was his history of anti-Semitic activity and his refusal to be truthful about those activities.

However, Ellison was was elected by the voters of his district. And Ellison, as a Muslim, has every right to choose to take his oath of office with his hand on a Koran.

Unfortunately, talk-show host and syndicated columnist Dennis Prager disagrees.

Keith Ellison (D.-Minn.), the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Uh, Dennis -- the United States Constitution has a little thing called the First Amendment that was added to is about 215 years ago, And said provision includes the free exercise of religion and precludes the establishment of religion. That should demolish your entire position right there -- but it seems to me that you do not give a damn about little niceties like freedom of religion. In that regard, I could argue that it is you who are out to do even graver damage to this country than you allege Ellison's use of his holy book will do -- but I won't engage in rhetoric quite as heated as yours.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

I'm no PC or multi-culti fanatic, but I am a believer in the notion that we as a people do not compel a religious act against someone's will. That is why I support the right of people to opt-out of the Pledge of Allegiance over the words "under God" because they are atheists. I do not believe that their free exercise of (non-)religion is a threat to America. Neither is the practice of permitting individuals who will not take an oath to "affirm" their truthfulness before a court, or the common practice of allowing a book other than the Bible to be used. Oh, and to answer your question -- if some moron wants to use "Mein Kampf", more power to him or her. Such an individual will not last long in office -- and might not even make it through his or her term before being forced out.

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

Frankly, I'd have great admiration for any Jew who chose to bring the family Torah for their swearing-in -- it would indicate an integrity that is sadly lacking in politics today. Ditto a Mormon who chose to use the Book of Mormon (which I believe to be no more inspired than the Koran) -- though since Mormons accept the Bible, I understand why it has never been an issue. And if someone wants to use take their oath on Dianetics, which is at the heart of L. Ron Hubbard's fraud upon the gullible and over-privileged, they can do so. Indeed, if someone chooses to take the oath on no book whatsoever -- and omit the customary "so help me God" at the end, I am troubled not in the least. The reality is that our founding document encourages such pluralism. Frankly, my preference would be that every public official take their oath of office upon an open copy of the US Constitution in the hope of inspiring fidelity to THAT document.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

No, you sanctimonious twit -- the reason is the First Amendment.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

No, it is because the greatest goal of America ought to be to be a beacon of freedom, faithful to the words of the Constitution. I don't give a damn if Muslims love us, like us, or hate our guts. Frankly, I want Muslims to FEAR us, and to be aware that in the event that jihadis continue to attack us (and other Muslims explicitly or implicitly give them support) we will see to it that Islam ceases to exist on any significant scale anywhere in the world if that is what is necessary to safeguard American lives and freedom.

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

Perhaps then you should suggest that Ellison should be forbidden from serving in Congress at all, given that his presence there will also be seen as a step towards the Islamicization of America by those same deranged followers of the false prophet Muhammad.

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9/11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.

Gee, Dennis, a similar argument was made in the 19th Century about allowing Catholic school children to use a Catholic translation of the Bible instead of the KJV in public schools back during the 19th century. After all, the KJV was seen as the source of the underlying value system of America -- and use of the Douay-Rhiems was seen as a step towards establishing Papal Tyranny over America. Your argument is no less offensive and bigoted than that of the nativists who burned convents, ransacked churches and trampled the Eucharist in response to such a reasonable demand by Catholics.

Oh, and by the way, Dennis -- if you check Article VI of the Constitution, no book is required for any oath of office, but a religious test for office is forbidden. How do you plan on getting around THAT unifying value as you seek to impose the Bible upon Keith Ellison?

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh refutes Prager well at National Review.

UPDATE II: A great piece on the matter in the Star Tribune presents the issue more or less as i see it -- and refutes the claim of left-wing bloggers that Prager made up the claim that Ellison wanted to use the Koran for his oath.

Ellison, who told the Star Tribune shortly after his election victory that he planned to use the Qur'an, was attending meetings in Washington on Thursday and could not be reached for comment, according to Dave Colling, his spokesman. But Ellison defended his plan to use the Qur'an, Islam's holiest book, in an interview with Abdi Aynte, a reporter from Minneapolis who writes for the Minnesota Monitor, an independently produced political news blog.

"The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer," Ellison was quoted as saying. "And that's what the freedom of religion is all about."

And I'd like to point out to my liberal friends that many conservatives are piling on prager over his outrageous column -- including folks like Rep. Tom Tancredo, who is among the most conservative folks in Congress.

MORE AT: Stop the ACLU, The Liberty Papers, Riehl World View, Kobayashi Maru, Andrew Sullivan, Politics & Culture, Minnesota Monitor, PolGeek, America vs. The World, One Country Voice, Outside The Beltway, Bullwinkle Blog, Noisy Room, Taylor Marsh, What Is The War?, Mahablog, California Conservative, Professor Bainbridge, A Newer World, Gina Cobb, Let Freedom Ring, Sister Toldjah, Tammy Bruce, Lifelike Pundits, Hot Air, Wake Up America, Conservative Blog Therapy, Shelbinator, Resonance, WritingUp, Florida Masochist, Shape of Days, Eclectic Times, Cox Family, Christifideles, Where I Stand, The Agitator

Posted by: Greg at 03:04 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 1901 words, total size 15 kb.

Can we Christians issue death threats now? Burn the embassies and consulates of Muslim countries? Cause a diplomatic crisis because of a blasphemous comment made about the central figure of our religion by a non-believer?

In other words, can we act like Muslims because of this blasphemous sign displayed at a rally in Turkey?

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 AM | Comments (453) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the many titles for Jesus Christ is Prince of Peace. And one of the many symbols of the Christmas holidays is a wreath. One Colorado homeowner combined the two ideas into a peace symbol wreath. Now one man – the president of the homeowners association – is seeking to force the holiday decoration down because he and a few other community members don’t like the perceived message.

A homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.

Some residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs. He said some residents have also believed it was a symbol of Satan. Three or four residents complained, he said.

"Somebody could put up signs that say drop bombs on Iraq. If you let one go up you have to let them all go up," he said in a telephone interview Sunday.

The homeowner has a different point of view.

Lisa Jensen said she wasn't thinking of the war when she hung the wreath. She said, "Peace is way bigger than not being at war. This is a spiritual thing."

Jensen, a past association president, calculates the fines will cost her about $1,000, and doubts they will be able to make her pay. But she said she's not going to take it down until after Christmas.

"Now that it has come to this I feel I can't get bullied," she said. "What if they don't like my Santa Claus."

And Kearns is quite clear that he is out to suppress a point of view that he does not like.

The association in this 200-home subdivision 270 miles southwest of Denver has sent a letter to her saying that residents were offended by the sign and the board "will not allow signs, flags etc. that can be considered divisive."

But the bylaws state that billboards, advertising and signs (and a wreath, even one with an unorthodox design, does not fall into any of those categories, in my humble opinion) may be permitted by the associationÂ’s architectural control committee. When Jensen went to the committee and ordered them to require the wreathÂ’s removal, the committee refused, presumably on the grounds that there was nothing wrong with the holiday decoration.

So Kearns acted like any other fascist dictator would when he failed to get his way.

He dismissed the committee and imposed the fine himself.

After all, we can’t let ideas like “Peace On Earth” get associated with Christmas.

Posted by: Greg at 09:55 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.

Just as I am critical of Islam, I want to be fair and note any positive developments within that faith. This is one.

A conference of Muslim scholars from around the world declared female circumcision to be contrary to Islam and an attack on women, and called Thursday for those who practice it to be punished.

The conference, organized by the German human rights group TARGET, recommended that governments pass laws to prohibit the tradition and that judicial bodies prosecute those who mutilate female genitals.

"The conference appeals to all Muslims to stop practicing this habit, according to Islam's teachings which prohibit inflicting harm on any human being," the participants said in their final statement.

Egypt's two top Islamic clerics, the Grand Sheik of Al-Azhar, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, the foremost theological institute in the Sunni Muslim world, and Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, attended the conference, which drew scholars from as far afield as Russia. Tantawi's and Gomaa's edicts are considered binding.

A few more steps like this and we might just see Islam reach the twenty-first century.

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

These two stories seem to create such a lovely contrast about the relationship between Islam and truth -- even in allegedly secular Turkey.

First, there is this story about converts from Islam to Christianity.

Two men who converted to Christianity went on trial Thursday for allegedly insulting "Turkishness" and inciting religious hatred against Islam, the Anatolia news agency reported.

* * *

Hakan Tastan, 37, and Turan Topal, 46, are accused of making the insults and of inciting hate while allegedly trying to convert other Turks to Christianity. If convicted, the two Turkish men could face up to nine years in prison.

The men were charged under Turkey's Article 301, which has been used to bring charges against dozens of intellectuals — including Nobel Prize-winner Orhan Pamuk.

The law has widely been condemned for severely limiting free expression and European officials have demanded Turkey change it as part of reforms to join the EU.

They also are charged under a law against inciting hatred based on religion.

Prosecutors accuse the two of allegedly telling possible converts that Islam was "a primitive and fabricated" religion and that Turks would remain "barbarians" as long they continued practicing Islam, Anatolia reported.

The prosecutors also accused them of speaking out against the country's compulsory military service, and compiling databases on possible converts.

Tastan and Topal denied the accusations in court.

"I am a Turk, I am a Turkish citizen. I don't accept the accusations of insulting 'Turkishness,'" Anatolia quoted Tastan as telling the court. "I am a Christian, that's true. I explain the Bible ... to people who want to learn. I am innocent."

So let's break it down and examine the nature of the alleged offense.

1) They stated that Islam was untrue, and that it was made up by Muhammad. Not an unreasonable position for a Christian to take, if you think about it. After all, if one believed that Islam were true and revealed by God, one would be intellectually and spiritually compelled to be a Muslim, correct?

2) Let's consider the contemporary evils committed in the name of Islam, and determine whether there is an element of barbarism in the faith. Has the Islamic world particularly advanced beyond barbarism?

3) They criticized conscription -- hardly an unreasonable position, particularly if they are of a Christian sect that takes a more pacifistic approach to Christian theology.

4) The compiled a database of possible converts -- which means they decided to engage in evangelism in a logical, organized manner. Why should this be a crime?

In other words, there is nothing in any of these charges that any reasonable person could consider a crime -- but for speaking the Truth of the Gospel, these men are on trial for offenses against Mosque and State. Taken as a whole, it seems clear that their real offense is apostasy from Islam.

Let's hope that this case is used as the final piece of evidence to end Turkey's chance of becoming part of the EU.

On the other hand, Muslim Turks are demanding that the Pope tell a lie when he visits Turkey.

Turkey's top Muslim official said on Thursday Pope Benedict should state clearly during a planned visit to Turkey next week he believes Islam, like Christianity, to be a religion of peace.

* * *

"I think the attitude the Pope should take is that neither Islam nor Christianity is a source of violence," said Ali Bardakoglu, who heads Ankara's Directorate General for Religious Affairs which controls Turkish imams and writes their sermons.

"If they ask me if Christianity has been the cause of violence, I would say no, that is not so ... We believe all prophets sent by God, from Moses to Jesus and Mohammad, are messengers of compassion," he told Reuters in an interview.

Violence committed in the name of religion was the fault of fallible and misguided human beings, he said.

"I believe the Pope shares this view and his saying this will be in the interests of all humanity," he said.

And I don't doubt that any failure by Benedict to make a statement that Islam is a religion of peace will be met with riots, arson, beatings bombings and other assorted acts of mayhem committed by Muslims in protest. After all, that has been their response to cartoons and comments that have offended them in the past. While I'll concede that the vast majority of Muslims are good, decent, and peaceful people, there is clearly something in their religion that propagates violence.

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 774 words, total size 5 kb.

Will McDonald's go all halal?

McDONALD'S latest bid to attract more customers -- Muslim fast-food lovers -- has caused uproar among customers.
The fast-food chain has introduced halal products at two Melbourne restaurants, significantly boosting sales.

However some non-Muslim customers are furious they were not told their hamburger meat was slaughtered and blessed in accordance with Islamic rules laid down in the Koran.

McDonald's consulted Muslim leaders before introducing halal products at its Brunswick East and St Albans stores.

Halal meat is from animals that have been killed facing Mecca and blessed using the name of Allah.

Brunswick East store assistant manager Nicholas Yacoub said the move had attracted a surge of new customers.

"It has pretty much doubled our sales," Mr Yacoub said.

The store does not tell drive-through customers about the change and has only one small sign inside advertising the move.

Coburg resident Miriam McLennan was stunned to discover the hamburger she bought from the Brunswick East store was blessed.

"Just as a Muslim would not want to eat anything that isn't halal . . . I should have my rights to eat normal, ordinary food that hasn't been blessed," she said.

A Catholic Church spokesman said non-Muslims deserved to know if the food was halal before buying. But he said there was no biblical reason for Christians to avoid halal food.

A McDonald's spokeswoman said customers who did not want halal food should buy from any of its other stores.

As I said this morning on Laura Ingraham's show (I was the first caller of the day), I don't necessarily have a problem with eating halal meat, any more than I do kosher meat. I simply wish to be told that the meat is halal so that I have a choice.

On the other hand, I do understand that there are those who say no -- I Corinthians 10:28 would certainly give them reason to object.

But I have to wonder -- is this the shape of things to come?

Posted by: Greg at 02:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

If so, it is one more step towards the canonization of the much loved Pope John Paul II.

A man apparently cured of lung, kidney and spinal cancer just weeks after doctors said he had no hope left has been cited as the final miracle required to secure the sainthood of Pope John Paul II.

Nicola Grippo, 76, a tailor from Salerno, southern Italy, contracted the cancer three years ago. Until a few months ago his body was riddled with tumours and his doctors told him he would die.

However, he made a dramatic recovery after a vision of John Paul II apparently came to his wife Elisabeth. "One night, the Pope appeared to her in a dream, holding a small child in his hand and walking on a road of white cobblestones," he told La Stampa newspaper.

"The doctors came to me and asked if I was a believer, if I had prayed to a saint. So my wife told them about her dream. They told me that my lungs were clear of all traces of cancer, and that they could not claim credit for the cure," he added.

His recovery has been held up by a senior Vatican prelate, Archbishop Gerardo Pierro, as the second miracle that John Paul II needs to be canonised. "It was a prodigious intervention, a miracle of the first order," he said.

This is the second miracle ascribed to the late pontiff. We may see the canonization of Saint John Paul the Great in our lifetimes.

And yet, this miracle is tinged with sadness for the Grippos.

He also spoke of his sadness that the miracle did not come to save his daughters, both of whom died young. "Now I and my wife are alone. I have lost two daughters. One was 20 and died of leukaemia. The other died in a car crash. I would have wanted the miracle for them," he said.

May God look with great love on these dear people, and comfort them in their old age. And may He also bless those considering the cause of Pope John Paul II.

Posted by: Greg at 02:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, I suppose if you consider writing a 300-hit-a-day blog and being a party precinct chair (about as grassroots as you get) makes me really important, but most folks would consider that reasonably obscure. But I guess the Democrats need something to run on down here in Texas, so one of them (running for a local office some 40-50 miles from me) has decided to send out a campaign mailer devoted to... ME!!!!!!

It's the same sort of crap that I wrote about last week -- in fact, the exact same crap. Same quotes, edited and/or removed from context to achieve maximum distortion. But let's go over them again, just to make it clear what was really said. And while I am at it, how about if I put a few pointed questions to Farhan Shamsi, Democrat candidate for Precinct 3 Justice of the Peace in Fort Bend County. After all, it seems to me that this prospective judge ought to answer some questions for the voters.

1) HE OBJECTS TO:

"That's one more dead terrorist in Hell with Allah."

MY RESPONSE: Of course, that statement comes from a post making fun of a jihadi suicide bomber who blew himself up early while riding a bicycle to his target. He believed he was going to spend eternity in Allah's abode, and I presume he knew best -- and since he was on a mission of murder and mayhem, I can only presume that his final destination was Hell. I simply acted upon the assumption that both of us are correct.

I'd like to ask Farhan Shamsi what he thinks -- did Allah reward this would-be murderer or is he burning in Hell? After all, sir, if you are going to question my theological assertion, I'd like to know your position -- and I believe the voters have a right to know.

2) HE OBJECTS TO:

"Where are the peacemakers from the Religion of Peace? All I see are jihadi swine."

MY RESPONSE: I was commenting on a story about the arrest of a group of would-be terrorists under arrest for their conspiracy. That should be clear from the excerpt from the news story, so I was clearly talking about extremists. Unfortunately for Islam, it is such folks that have become the public face of Islam. Why are you more concerned about the fact that someone would criticize your faith and connect it to terrorism than you are about the fact that there are so many folks engaged in acts of murder and mayhem in the name of your religion, Mr. Shamsi? Why didn't you spend those campaign dollars sending out a denunciation of jihadi terrorism and a pledge to fight it, instead of a condemnation of someone who doesn't like jihadi terrorism and dares to say so. You would have my respect and support if you had -- but I guess I can tell what your priority is, and it isn't cleaning up your religion or stopping terrorism. I think your decision speaks volumes to the voters, sir.

3) HE OBJECTS TO:

"Sorry, no respect for any ethnicity or religion with this scumbag...Just following the example of Muhammad, I guess. I recall that he liked sex with little girls, too. Would somebody please remind me what is there in Islam that is good and noble?"

MY RESPONSE: Sir, do you really respect a man who violates a child custody order, takes his twelve-year-old daughter to a foreign country, with the intent of marrying her to a man in his twenties? Most Americans would call those actions criminal and disgusting -- and the religious and/or cultural motivations beneath contempt. If you don't, I question your fitness for public office.

As for the assertions regarding Muhammad, I suggest you read up on his marriage to Aisha -- who he married at age six and with whom he consumated his marriage at age nine. Those are not my numbers -- these come from various hadiths and early Muslim historians, among these being Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan NasÂ’ai, Ibn-i-Majah, ibn Ishaq, and al-Tabari. It is hardly an act of disrespect to speak the truth about Muhammad by citing authoritative Muslim sources -- unless you consider these same sources to be unreliable and unworthy of respect.

So let's get a quick answer -- does Islam REALLY condone kidnapping and child marriages? Do you? Are these good and noble aspects of your religion? The voters deserve to know.

4) HE OBJECTS TO:

"Israel has the capability to nuke your camel-humping ass."

MY RESPONSE: This is a statement made about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust-denying Jew-hater who has expressed a desire to remove Israel from the map of the world and is seeking to develop nuclear weapons in order to carry that out. That is the context of my comment. Mr. Shamsi -- do you support the Madman of Teheran's policies, and his desire to commit a second genocide against the Jewish people? Do you support his intent to attack America's closest ally in the Middle East? If you don't, would you explain what you find objectionable in my insulting comment directed at a man who took American diplomats and military personnel hostage in the US Embassy in 1979? I'm sure the good people of Fort Bend County would like to know, sir -- especially since Iran today tested missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to targets in Israel.

5) HE OBJECTS TO:

Better idea – the civilized world will keep the Christian and the followers of the Religion of barbarism can keep their co-religionist.

MY RESPONSE: Since it is only one paragraph, why don't I let you see the complete context.

Italian journalist who converted to Islam kidnapped by jihadis in Afghanistan – who demand the return of an Afghan convert to Christianity for application of the sharia penalty for apostasy (which is, of course, death). Am I the only one who smells a set-up here? Better idea – the civilized world will keep the Christian and the followers of the Religion of Barbarism can keep their co-religionist.

Is hostage-taking to accomplish a religiously-based aim a barbaric practice or not? Is demanding that an individual be turned over for execution because they have left Islam an act of barbarism? Would you characterize the actions of these terrorists to be a part of a religion of barbarism -- or are such actions acceptable? Please, Mr. Shamsi, there are voters whose decision depends upon your answer.

6) HE OBJECTS TO:.

"In other words, fundamental human rights are anathema to Islam."

MY RESPONSE: Mr. Shamsi, this was commentary about a case involving a woman who has been baptized and seeks to be recognized as a Christian. She has been told by Malaysia's civil courts that it is a matter for the Muslim religious courts, and the Muslim religious courts have indicated the she will be imprisoned until she recants her so-called apostasy. Do you believe in religious freedom, Mr. Shamsi, as embodied in the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or do you believe, as has been the ruling of sharia-based courts around the world, that no Muslim has the right to follow their conscience on religious matters, and that those who would do so must be coerced against their will to practice Islam? The voters have a right to know, sir.

Most Muslims that I know (and I have known many) are good and decent people. Indeed, my wife is alive today because of a group of medical professionals who are almost exclusively Muslim. I hold them in great esteem as individuals -- as I have any number of Muslim classmates, students, co-workers, and neighbors over the course of my life. Indeed, at the 2000 GOP State Convention I worked to see to it that a young Muslim woman was selected as a delegate representing CD22 at the Republican National Convention. I gladly extend the hand of friendship to any Muslim who wishes to enjoy the blessings of liberty that this nation and our Constitution stand for.

Now there are those who would argue that my views indicate an intolerance for Islam. To the degree that Islam is expressed in acts of terrorism, I'd agree. But I do know there is more, a heritage of art, literature and architecture that are worthy of honor and respect. As a lover of history, I see much in Islam to praise -- and recognize that Western Culture lives today because the Muslim world preserved it during the Middle Ages.

Unfortunately, that is not the face of Islam that presents itself to the world today. Sadly, there is a cancer at work within Islam -- one that manifests itself in events like those in New York, Washington, London, Bali, and Madrid. Its symptoms include acts of oppression and violence against those who reject the Muslim faith. It looks like this.

Mr. Shamsi, will you be as strident in your condemnation of this real hate speech by real Muslims in the name of Islam as you are of what you and your fellow Democrats imagine is "hate speech" on my blog? Or will you remain silent because there is no partisan or electoral value in speaking out?

Regardless, I must be clear about something. I do not consider Muhammad a prophet. I do not accept the Quran as the word of God. And I have some doubts about whether or not my God and Allah are really the same deity, for all of Islam's insistence that they are one-and-the-same. But why would you be surprised? If I accepted those things, I would be a Muslim!

However I am not a Muslim, and I reserve the right to speak critically of the Islamic faith (or things done in the name of that faith) -- just as I support the right of every Muslim to speak critically of Christianity.

That's not bigotry -- it is the American way.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, Third World County, Bullwinkle Blog, Adam's Blog, Clash of Civilizations, Right Nation, Uncooperative Blogger, World According to Carl, People Are Idiots, Cao's Blog, Stop the ACLU, Conservative Cat, Amboy Times, Blog-O-Fascists, Church & State, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Wing News, Blue Star Chronicles, Echo9er, Wake Up America, Pursuing Holiness, Dumb Ox, Is It Just Me?, Jo's Cafe

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 1749 words, total size 13 kb.