If you want proof that even so-called "moderate" and "educated" Muslims haven't internalized the concept of freedom of speech, one need look no further than this column by Dr Abdelwahab El-Affendi, a Senior Research Fellow and Coordinator of the Islam and Democracy Programme at the Centre for the Study for Democracy, University of Westminster. The column, appearing on al-Jazeera's website, starts off with a rather jarring analogy.

When the controversial Indian-born British author Salman Rushdie was awarded the European Union Literary Award in 1996, of all places, Denmark Muslims were immensely infuriated by this added insult.

The very idea of giving Rushdie a literary prize after his book Satanic Verses was like offering Hitler the Nobel Peace Prize after Auschwitz. And the very inability of Western intellectuals and leaders to understand this simple fact lies at the heart of the threatened "clash of civilisations".

Writing and publishing a book that offends Muslims, then, must be the equivalent of the industrialized mass slaughter of millions. Failure to "properly" defer to Islam is the eqivalent of the gas chambers and crematoria of the twentieth century's worst attempt at genocide.

Is this guy serious?

And given that he presumably is serious, does that starting-point allow us to take anything else he has to say seriously? And if this represents the view of moderate, educated, Westernized Islam, is that form of the faith ultimately any more compatible with Western civilization than the fundamentalist Islamofascism of Osama bin Laden?

Hat Tip -- Jawa Report, Dread Pundit Bluto, Vince Aut Morire

Posted by: Greg at 11:38 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

The Leader, out of Corning, NY, attempts to explain why the violence has taken place over the Danish cartoons. In running this article, the paper (unintentionally) demonstrates that many Muslims just don't get it -- and that their world-view is antithetical to that of those who live in a free society.

What if a Muslim made a satirical comment about the Holocaust?

Uh, anti-Semitism is rampant in the Muslim world, and anti-Semitic material runs in the state-run media of most Arab countries. I've yet to see Jews rioting in the streets.

Or made a joke at the expense of Jesus Christ?

I'm not sure about jokes, but Islam itself is one giant blasphemy against Jesus Christ, labeling him as a prophet inferior to Mohammad (pubh*) rather than the Son of God. I'm offended, but have never reacted violently, and i am unaware of anyone who has.

There's a chance a Jew or a Christian would be deeply offended. That, according to Najeeb Rehman, is exactly how Muslims across the globe felt when caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad were first published in a Danish newspaper last September and then reappeared in other Western media, mostly in Europe.

Fine. You are offended. So what? Get over it, just like the Christians and Jews do in the examples above. Don't act like uncivilized sub-humans.

“I believe in freedom of expression, but that right has limits,” said Rehman, a spokesman for the Islamic Center of the Finger Lakes in Big Flats. “That right ends where someone else's right begins.”

And what is the putative right that you and your fellow Islamocensors claim here? After all, there is nothing in the cartoons that limits your freedom of speech or your free exercise of religion. Do you really believe there is a right not to be offended, or a right to force others to conform to the dictates of your religion?

Muslims have decried the images - one of which shows a prophet with a turban shaped like a bomb with a lit fuse - as blasphemous because Islam prohibits images of Muhammad and other prophets.

The images have sparked worldwide protests, some of which have been deadly, throughout the Muslim world. While there have been few demonstrations in the United States, it doesn't mean Muslims here feel any different about the cartoons.

“It may be free expression, but you can't go into a crowd and scream ‘fire,'” said Yama Osmanzai of Horseheads. “You have to have judgment.”

Fine, you believe the images to be blasphemous. So what of it? Like I said, I consider portions of the Koran to be blasphemous -- indeed, I see the entire faith as a melange of the heretical forms of Christianity that were still extant on the fringes of the Christian world in the 6th century. Does that mean that that I have a right to have to have Islam suppressed on the basis of my offense at its false and blasphemous teachings?

And Yama, before you take the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy too far, please understand that the term refers to false utterances that are likely to cause an immediate mindless panic which endangers lives -- not truthful depictions of religious figures whose followers might get upset. After all, later case law upholds the right of folks to utter obscenities and racial slurs in public places -- even if people are offended -- and to display hateful signs and symbols (such as swastikas) in the midst of communities that reject them and wish to exclude them. Thus the actual status of free speech in this country is such that I and a group of like-minded individuals would be legally within our rights to stand outside your mosque on Friday, eating bacon sandwiches and displaying the Danish cartoons and carrying signs condemning Mohammad (pubh*) as pedophile for raping the 9-year-old Ayisha.

Osmanzai said the ban on images depicting Muhammad was handed down by the prophet himself so followers of Islam would not worship him.

“We follow his teachings very closely. Islam has certain lines you can't cross,” Osmanzai said. “We don't say anything bad about the prophets, not just Muhammad, but others such as Moses and Jesus.”

And since I'm not a follower of Islam, I don't give a rat's ass wht your religion says about images of your false prophet. Don't worry -- I certainly won't be worshipping them. But since I am not a Muslim, I'm allowed to cross whatever Muslim religious lines I want. And by the way -- you just blasphemed against Christ our Lord by calling Jesus a prophet. Can I place a bounty on your severed head now, like certain Muslim leaders have upon the heads of the cartoonists?

Rehman said the Danish government's refusal to meet with local Islamic leaders there and the cartoonist's unwillingness to apologize for the images is a major reason “why this has gotten out of hand.”

“(Muslims) wanted a retraction,” Rehman said. “To come out with a cartoon this degrading is insensitive to the community.”

And Muslims were rightly told to go pound sand. After all, the Danish government had nothing to apologize for or retract. What got out of hand was a bunch of folks who still think that they live in sixth-century Arabia decided to act in a barbaric fashion.

At the same time, many local Muslims have condemned the violence of some of the protests over the cartoon controversy.

“It's sad,” said Mushtaq A. Sheikh, another spokesman for the Islamic Center. “Peaceful demonstrations should take place, but some of this has gone way overboard.”

Sheikh, however, noted that if some sort of apology were offered after the images appeared, “the matter might have gone away.”

At last, someone with a modicum of sense, someone who is not out-and-out justifying the violence, even though he still excuses it with a comment about an apology.

But why should anyone apologize if they have done nothing wrong? Did you want them to lie to you? Are you that childish?

But if that is all you want, here goes -- "I'm sorry that you are so arrogant as to think there is anything wrong with non-Muslims not following Islamic law, and that you believ that you have the right to impose your religion upon the rest of the world. I'm also sorry that your co-religionists cannot conduct themselves in a manner that even remotely approaches the bounds of civilized behavior. Lastly, I'm sorry that the concept of jihad, as practiced over the last 14 centuries (and especially over the last few decades), has resulted in the rest of the world rightly seeing Islam as the religion of terrorism, even if most Muslims do not engage in violence."

Does that make everything better now?

Osmanzai said the violent protests creates a negative image for Islam because “Muslims are a very peaceful people.”

“We want things to happen in a peaceful manner,” he said. “It's only a small number of people who are reacting violently, but the media is not doing us justice by the images they portray.”

But, Osmanzai said the reactions are indicative of how Muslims felt after seeing the images.

See my apology above.

“I don't agree with the violence, but we all feel the same outrage,” he said. “Many people's frustrations have reached a boiling point.

“Some religions teach that if someone strikes you in the cheek, you turn the other one toward him,” Osmanzai said. “But our religion allows us to be outspoken. We will defend Islam.”

Fine. Be outspoken in defending Islam.

Tell us you are offended.

Tell us why.

Ask us to refrain from offending you.

But don't demand that we conform to your point of view -- and certainly don't threaten us with death if we refuse.

And most importantly, learn a little impulse control, because there are a great many of us who refuse to curb our tongue just because you don't like our words or pictures. After all, just as you have the right to practice your faith, we also have the identical right to practice ours -- or none at all.

And if that means that I feel called (hypothetically only) to say that Mohammad (pubh*) was visited by Beelzebub and not the Angel Gabriel, that Allah is Satan (not the God of the Jews and the Christians) and that the Koran is therefore the word of the Devil himself, then you had better suck it up and deal with it. That is my right, just as it is your right to falsely call Jesus a prophet and not the Son of God and Saviour of the World.

Local Muslim Naeem Parvez noted that most of the violent protests have taken place in the eastern part of the Islamic world, where there are more people with little or no education and where violent demonstrations are a part of everyday life. In Western nations, particularly throughout Europe, the protests have been more peaceful.

“The out-of-control anger is unfortunate. No one should be starting fires or destroying another person's property,” he said. “They should express their anger in a positive way.”

Unfortunately, this guy is only half right. Yes, his analysis of the situation in countries with a majority Muslim population is accurate -- but the only reason that violence did not break out in the West was the fact that there was a heavy police presence in the streets to prevent such violence. Look at the signs from London if you do not believe that.

Rehman hopes the controversy will encourage people to be more sensitive of the community around them.

“There has to be some restraint,” he said. “We don't joke about sensitive issues.”

Hopefully this incident will teach the Muslims restraint, and make them more sensitive to the rights of Christians and Jews and others around the world -- including in their own countries, where non-Muslims face persecution and discrimination on a daily basis with the full approval of the government.

Maybe this incident will cause the Muslim world to finally catch up with the rest of the world in terms of respect for fundamental human rights. And I'm not joking about that sensitive issue, for those rights are God-given, and their denial is blasphemy.

* "Place Bacon Upon Him"

OPEN TRACKBACKING -- Conservative Cat, Blue Star Chronicles, Don Surber, Bloggin' Out Loud, Jo's Cafe, Basil's Blog, Third World Country

Posted by: Greg at 09:39 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1740 words, total size 11 kb.

This story is absurd.

FOUNTAIN CITY, Wis. (AP) - A man says his attempts to sign up for an e-mail account with Yahoo failed when he used his name, which includes the letters a-l-l-a-h - as in Allah, the Arabic word for God.

Ed Callahan said he started trying to establish the e-mail account after his mother, with the same last name, couldn't get one.

As he tried using various words, he determined that e-mail addresses with other religious words seemed OK, but not if they included the spelling of Allah.
"The war on terror is becoming a war on Muslims," Callahan said.

Yahoo Inc. said Wednesday it has changed policy to allow usage of the word. In a written statement, the company defended the previous policy as an attempt to protect users from hateful speech.

"A small number of people registered for IDs using specific terms with the sole purpose of promoting hate and then used those IDs to post content that was harmful or threatening to others, thus violating Yahoo's terms of service," the statement said.

After the policy change, Callahan said he promptly registered a new e-mail account, which includes his last name.

Callahan, who is clearly a liberal with his head up his as, doesn’t see that the restriction was not a persecution of Muslims, but a granting of special consideration to the Religion of Barbarism, who PC-types have decreed must never be offended. After all, as his own research showed that no other religious group received such protection or consideration. After all, he would have had no problem at all if his name was “Godwin”.

Posted by: Greg at 11:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

This story is absurd.

FOUNTAIN CITY, Wis. (AP) - A man says his attempts to sign up for an e-mail account with Yahoo failed when he used his name, which includes the letters a-l-l-a-h - as in Allah, the Arabic word for God.

Ed Callahan said he started trying to establish the e-mail account after his mother, with the same last name, couldn't get one.

As he tried using various words, he determined that e-mail addresses with other religious words seemed OK, but not if they included the spelling of Allah.
"The war on terror is becoming a war on Muslims," Callahan said.

Yahoo Inc. said Wednesday it has changed policy to allow usage of the word. In a written statement, the company defended the previous policy as an attempt to protect users from hateful speech.

"A small number of people registered for IDs using specific terms with the sole purpose of promoting hate and then used those IDs to post content that was harmful or threatening to others, thus violating Yahoo's terms of service," the statement said.

After the policy change, Callahan said he promptly registered a new e-mail account, which includes his last name.

Callahan, who is clearly a liberal with his head up his as, doesn’t see that the restriction was not a persecution of Muslims, but a granting of special consideration to the Religion of Barbarism, who PC-types have decreed must never be offended. After all, as his own research showed that no other religious group received such protection or consideration. After all, he would have had no problem at all if his name was “Godwin”.

Posted by: Greg at 11:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

Nothing can justify these evil and unChristian actions in response to the murderous rampage of Nigerian Muslims. While the article presents this as a religious conflict, part of me wonders the degree to which tribal affiliations and enmities were at work in this

AN enraged mob of Nigerian Christian youths has slaughtered dozens of Muslims in two days of rioting in the southern city of Onitsha.

Rioting broke out in the lawless trading town on the banks of the Niger River yesterday when members of the Igbo tribe launched revenge attacks in response to an earlier massacre of Christians in the north of the country.

Nineteen corpses were seen scattered by the side of the main road into the city across the Niger River bridge, where a contingent of soldiers had set up a roadblock to hold back hundreds of rioters armed with clubs and machetes.

The bodies had been beaten, slashed and in some cases burnt. Around the bloodied corpses lay scattered the caps and Islamic prayer beads associated with the northern Hausa tribe.

A police official had earlier said five more Hausas had been killed in the neighbouring city of Asaba, across the bridge, to where thousands of Muslims fled to escape the mayhem in Onitsha.

Frank Nweke, a magazine editor who ran the gauntlet of the mob to escape Onitsha and made it to the bridge, said he had seen 15 more corpses lying in the streets of the city.

"Some of them had been beheaded, others had had their genitals removed. I saw one boy holding a severed head with blood dripping from it," he said.

Army officers at the scene could not confirm a total death toll in the city, where control has not yet been restored, but said thousands of Muslims had taken shelter in barracks and police stations.

May God aid the Nigerian authorities in bringing these so-called Christians to justice for their crimes. Their deeds blaspheme against the teachings of Jesus Christ, who taught turning the other cheek -- for in the end, the source of the conflict matters less than the evil deed committed.

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, Strata-Spehre, Capital Region People, livefrombaycity, Right Wing, Mike's Noise, Radioman's World, Scriptorium, Jawa Report, Delaware Watch

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like I've attracted some attention.

A new comment has been posted on your blog Rhymes With Right, on entry
#158774 (Toronto Cartoon Flap).
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/158774.php

IP Address: 164.100.214.80
Name: aamir malik
Email Address: aamir834@yahoo.com
URL:

Comments:

ASALAM_U_ALIKUM
what the hell have you people made this?
how could you be so much rude ?
what do you think of yourself?
if you vl be here we will jst kill you>?

I'm contacting Yahoo and his ISP regarding this. Feel free to use the email address if you see fit.

And yet there are still those calling Islam a religion of peace. Instead we see that Muslims continue following the bloody example set by their murderous false prophet Muhammad (pbuh*).

*pbuh=PLACE BACON UPON HIM

And while I'm at it, may as well use this as an excuse for an unscheduled linkfest! Feel free to post links to your best stuff, tracking back to this post. I won't set an arbitrary limit on the number of links, but will ask you to be reasonable.

MORE AT Jawa Report, Howie's Moisture Farm, http://paduanjawa.blogspot.com/2006/02/join-party.html">This Blog Is Full Of Crap

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Way to go Greg! I've had my share of death threats, also!

Yours was pretty kind. Mine was simply a "this is why we chop your heads off" kinda comment.

Is it *my* fault that Muhammed was a blood-thirsty pedophile? I mean, c'mon! Marries Aisha at 6, boinks her at 9? That's not sick?

By comparison, did Jesus boink anybody? Who's the *real* prophet

Posted by: Eric Clemmons at Tue Feb 21 04:56:40 2006 (yPOKC)

2 PBUH -- classic! Wear the "threat" as a badge of honor -- in the same fashion I did when my five week-old son gurgled on my shoulder.

Posted by: Jib Trim at Tue Feb 21 16:56:24 2006 (qLQqg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The student paper at University of Toronto, The Strand, wouldnÂ’t print the Danish cartoons, on the grounds that they were inflammatory.

So instead, they printed this one.

What do you think?

The paper refused to back down under pressure from student groups but the support of the university. On one level, I find it admirable. On another, I do not.

As I have said in the past, I have doubts about the original decision to publish the Mohammad cartoons in Denmark. I donÂ’t know that I would have published all of them, but the paperÂ’s editor offers a good explanation of his motivations. But once they became the source of such an uproar, the cartoons became newsworthy and needed to be printed to provide context. The failure of media outlets to do so was wrong.

The Strand took a different tack – they published this entirely different cartoon, one that does not show Mohammad’s face but which is, clearly, Mohammad. And for good measure, they showed him making out with Jesus on a carnival ride – with Jesus clearly the sexual aggressor. And that is where I am left somewhat puzzled – what exactly was the point of portraying the Son of God in such a gratuitously offensive manner? I don’t deny their right to do so (though I wonder if Canadian hate-speech laws could be invoked), I just don’t see their reason for doing so if they won’t publish the newsworthy cartoons.

Their explanation for publishing this cartoon?

To some degree, we felt like it was our duty to do so. We would be making a statement: that freedom of expression triumphs over all, that tactics like the administration emptying newsstands over publication of controversial subjects are Draconian and detrimental to an environment like a university, which claims to nurture new ideas and inspire independent thinking. After all, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are basic values in Canadian society. But where does freedom of images fit in?

Our own editorial staff was completely conflicted on the issue. Many of them had had their fill of cartoon-related debate with the prophets-making-out-cartoon and didn't even reply to the e-mails that were sent out. By Monday night, not everyone's opinion had been aired, and the notorious cartoons were screaming for a decision to be made.

We won't be like other institutions. We will value the freedom to choose just as highly as that to express. And above all, we will try to the best of our abilities to reach out to the greatest possible audience we can, hopefully inspiring some discussion and critical thinking along the way.

You can see the cartoon we almost didn't publish below. In light of everything else, it seems pretty damn tame. Hell, those could be any two guys kissing! And who doesn't play tonsil hockey in the Tunnel of Love? As for the other ones, you can view them online, but only if you want to.

Frankly, it is a pretty weak explanation, don’t you think? And I won’t get into the question of their blasphemy in the editorial, in which they relegate Jesus to the status of mere prophet (the Muslim designation for Jesus) rather than Christian designations like Lord, Son of God, and Saviour of the World. But it is their right to publish, just as it is my right to say they are wrong – but being wrong and offensive and blasphemous is not a basis for censorship.

Still, I find it interesting to note that not one riot has been provoked by the much more offensive explicit and intentional insult to Jesus. And that may be the real point – offended Christians don’t kill; offended Muslims do.

UPDATE: It seems that the ever-so-tolerant folks at University of Toronto are not so tolerant of free speech in instances when it upholds traditional Christian teachings on homosexuality or abortion.

HAT TIP: Exposed Agenda via Crittermusings.

MORE AT Jawa Report, Dread Pundit Bluto, Hyscience, Live Free Or Die, I'll Get That Chicken, Adam Daifallah, Elder of Ziyon, Nav Purewal, Reason/Hit & Run, Kokonut Pundits, NFOrce

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 689 words, total size 6 kb.

Lorenzo Vidin of the Boston Herald asks a couple of pertinent questions, based upon the Danish Cartoon controversy.

The key question is: where do we place that limit? How far must we compromise to respect other peoplesÂ’ feelings? Last year, for example, two Scottish Muslim organizations tried to prevent a Glasgow restaurant from obtaining the authorization required to sell alcohol to patrons sitting outdoors, claiming it was offensive to Muslim passers-by.

Are we going to reach a point where no alcohol will be served in public places, as that could offend Muslims? By the same token, some Muslims are offended by mini-skirts and other revealing clothes. Are we going to implement a culturally-sensitive dress code for Western women on our own turf? The question is not so preposterous, given the acts of kowtowing that abound in the West.

If not, then why not? After all, if we are going to limit rights long seen as inalienable -- rights with which we were endowed by our Creator, to crib a phrase from jefferson -- why shouldn't we accept these more limited restrictions based upon the need to be sensitive to those who utterly reject Western notions of freedom?

Posted by: Greg at 11:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's what one expert on Islam has to say.

For the past two weeks, Patrick Sookhdeo has been canvassing the opinions of Muslim clerics in Britain on the row over the cartoons featuring images of Mohammed that were first published in Denmark and then reprinted in several other European countries.

"They think they have won the debate," he says with a sigh. "They believe that the British Government has capitulated to them, because it feared the consequences if it did not.

"The cartoons, you see, have not been published in this country, and the Government has been very critical of those countries in which they were published. To many of the Islamic clerics, that's a clear victory.

"It's confirmation of what they believe to be a familiar pattern: if spokesmen for British Muslims threaten what they call 'adverse consequences' - violence to the rest of us - then the British Government will cave in. I think it is a very dangerous precedent."

So that should make it clear -- "senistivity" to Islamist values is seen as weakness.

Read the article, too, for an inspiring biography of one was born a Muslim but converted to Christianity -- and what he sees as the direction that Islam is headed in the UK if there is not firm action taken to force a change of course.

Posted by: Greg at 04:14 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

Certainly not if they are talking out of both sides of their turbans.

Political criticism of local imams in recent days has led the integration minister to exclude the clerics from discussions of the integration of Muslims into Danish society.

Some imams have reportedly offered statements to media in Muslim countries that harmed Danish interests in the on-going row over the Mohammed cartoons, the integration minister, Rikke Hvilshøj, said on Monday.

‘I think we have a clear picture today that imams are not the ones we should look to if we want integration in Denmark to work,’ Hvilshøj told daily newspaper Berlingske Tidende. ‘I’ve become aware that there are other groups we should draw upon.’

One incident involved imam Abu Laban telling television station al-Jazeera that he was happy about the Muslim boycott. Later the same day, he said to Danish television station TV2 that he would urge Muslims to stop the boycott immediately.

Hvilshøj had otherwise made efforts to draw upon imams’ significant influence in local Muslim communities. During a conference held with seven local imams last April, she called upon them to encourage young Muslims to complete an education.

PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen had also invited a group of imams for an anti-terror conference at his Marienborg residence in September. The conference sought to find ways of preventing Islam from being used in the name of terror attacks.

Such efforts to involve the Muslim clerics were now a thing of the past, said Hvilshøj.

‘The imams have revealed that they aren’t the ones who benefit integration in Denmark,’ she said. ‘Some of the quotes we have seen show that they aren’t interested in integeration.’

Seems pretty clear that these folks are tailoring their message to their audience while serving their own interests. Given that their own words have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted, why should the Danish government speak with Muslim religious leaders?

Posted by: Greg at 03:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

1) If Muslims are allowed to rampage over alleged "blasphemy" via cartoon, are we Christians allowed to do so over the blasphemy of Islam claiming Jesus is only a prophet?

2) If the murder of 3000 in the name of Islam was insufficient reason for Americans to torch mosques and shoot Muslims in the streets, why is the publication of 12 cartoons adequate basis for Muslims to destroy churches and murder Christians?

3) If "respect for religious freedom" is an adequate basis for censorship, why isn't "respect for freedom of speech and press" an adequate basis to ban Islam?

Posted by: Greg at 02:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

At least the Spanish submitted to the yoke of the Islamofascists in the face of a terrorist attack on Spanish soil. The Berlusconi government caved in because Libyan police overreacted and killed 11 Libyans in Libya after they attacked the Italian Embassy.

This all goes back to the decision of Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli to print -- and wear -- t-shirts with one of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad on them. He then wore one on television during an interview.

Calderoli, whose party is known for its anti-Islam stance, showed off a T-shirt with the controversial cartoons on Italian television on Wednesday. He said the T-shirt was not meant to be a provocation but said there was no point in promoting dialogue with Muslim extremists.

'It is time to put an end to this tale that we need dialogue with these people,' Calderoli said at the time.

As if to prove the point, a mindless Muslim mob in Libya rioted and damaged teh Italian embassy. In attempting to disperse the, Libyan police were ordered to open fire with live ammunition on the rioters, resulting in at least 11 deaths and scores of injuries.

Which, of course, has all been laid at the feet of Calderoli for printing and wearing a t-shirt.

"The entire government is asking the resignation of Calderoli," Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini said on Saturday.

A charity foundation chaired by the influential son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Saif al Islam, said in a statement it deemed Calderoli "responsible for what had occurred and for the innocent victims and the regrettable incidents."

"The Italian government has to take the action required by such situation against this racist minister who is full of hatred," the statement by the Gaddafi Foundation said.

"If the Italian government fails to do so, Italian relations with Libya will go through a serious and crucial stage during which these ties will be reassessed and reviewed," it added.

Calderoli, showing that he is a man of infinitely more compassion for dead Islamocensors than I am, has this to say.

"I can even be sorry for the victims. But what happened in Libya has nothing to do with my T-shirt. The problem is different ... What is at stake is Western civilization," Calderoli told La Repubblica daily in an interview.

(I fail to see why any civilized person should feel the least bit of compassion for those out to destroy fundamental human rights over a cartoon, but maybe that just means Calderoli is a better man than I am.)

Sadly, though, Calderoli chose not to stand his ground, and offered his resignation today.

And in Libya, the government has taken action in response to the deaths.

In Tripoli, the General People's Congress fired Interior Minister Nasser al-Mabrouk Abdallah and police chiefs in Benghazi saying "disproportionate force" had been used to disperse protesters who tried to storm the Italian consulate.

The Congress hailed the dead as "martyrs" and declared Sunday a day of mourning across Libya.

This, of course, must be seen as the official imprimatur on destructive rioting by the Gaddafi, making Libya again a state sponsor of terrorism against the civilized Western world.

The submission to dhimmitude by Italy (or, as I now call it, al-Dhimmitalia) is a stunning victory for the Islamist horde, and is a step away from freedom in Europe.

For my part, I'll reprint my favorite Danish cartoon -- and ask you the question it inspires in me.

Saint or Devil?

UPDATE: The Washington Post has additional details in a new article.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Stuck On Stupid, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Voteswagon, Jo's Cafe, third world country, Adam's Blog, Bloggin' Out Loud, Blue Star Chronicles, Everyman Chronicle, Uncooperative Blogger, Right Track, Cao's Blog, Don Surber, NIF, Right Wing Nation, Outside the Beltway, Basil's Blog, Stop the ACLU, Wizbang, A Tick in the Mind's Eye, Point Five, Bullwinkle, Samantha Burns

Posted by: Greg at 11:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 659 words, total size 7 kb.

Of the many Mormons I have known in my life, I can think of none who would not qualify for inclusion of the rubric of “he/she is among the finest people I know.” Whether I think of Tammy, my childhood neighbor and friend who lost her battle to cancer over three decades ago; Betty, who volunteered time to run the base youth group when I was a kid; Beth, one of my high school/college sweethearts; friendly neighborhood commenter and blog-buddy T. F. Sterns; or my Mormon colleagues at school, I cannot ever think of a time that I have questioned the character or integrity of any of these individuals.

That said, I must respectfully say that I do not accept the distinctive tenets of their faith, which I did explore during my college years. Much of my skepticism comes from my own love of history, and my inability to reconcile the contents of LDS scriptures with the historical record as I understand it. I therefore found this article to be striking, especially insofar as it addresses the conflict between revealed knowledge, faith, and the scientific/historical record.

From the time he was a child in Peru, the Mormon Church instilled in Jose A. Loayza the conviction that he and millions of other Native Americans were descended from a lost tribe of Israel that reached the New World more than 2,000 years ago.

"We were taught all the blessings of that Hebrew lineage belonged to us and that we were special people," said Loayza, now a Salt Lake City attorney. "It not only made me feel special, but it gave me a sense of transcendental identity, an identity with God."

A few years ago, Loayza said, his faith was shaken and his identity stripped away by DNA evidence showing that the ancestors of American natives came from Asia, not the Middle East.

"I've gone through stages," he said. "Absolutely denial. Utter amazement and surprise. Anger and bitterness."

For Mormons, the lack of discernible Hebrew blood in Native Americans is no minor collision between faith and science. It burrows into the historical foundations of the Book of Mormon, a 175-year-old transcription that the church regards as literal and without error.

For those outside the faith, the depth of the church's dilemma can be explained this way: Imagine if DNA evidence revealed that the Pilgrims didn't sail from Europe to escape religious persecution but rather were part of a migration from Iceland — and that U.S. history books were wrong.

Critics want the church to admit its mistake and apologize to millions of Native Americans it converted. Church leaders have shown no inclination to do so. Indeed, they have dismissed as heresy any suggestion that Native American genetics undermine the Mormon creed.

Yet at the same time, the church has subtly promoted a fresh interpretation of the Book of Mormon intended to reconcile the DNA findings with the scriptures. This analysis is radically at odds with long-standing Mormon teachings.

Now let me say that the rest of the article continues on in a similar vein, and I found it fascinating. At the same time, I found it somewhat one-sided, and were I a member of the LDS church I suspect I might be seriously offended by the stance it takes. The article certainly raises a serious issue, but at the same time, it strikes at sacred things. I don’t doubt that there will be letters to the editor and commentary of LDS blogs (and others) regarding the article, regarding the accuracy of what appeared in the LA Times. I know the LDS Church has already responded.

And that is where I see a critical contrast. We have, over the last few weeks, seen violent convulsions over a dozen editorial cartoons of questionable artistic and journalistic merit, based upon the complaint that they misrepresent the Islamic faith. There have been boycotts, demands for government (or international) censorship, threats, property damage, violence, and killings in response to the alleged blasphemy of depicting Islam’s so-called prophet. I have not, as of this posting, heard news of marauding Mormon mobs in the streets of Salt Lake City protesting the publication of the article.

And therein lies the difference. When one compares the cartoons and the article, it is clear that the LA Times article on the challenge of science to the beliefs of Mormonism touches on the essentials of that faith every bit as seriously as the cartoons do on the essentials of Islam, if not more so. Furthermore, the publication of the LA Times article (which is not necessarily compellingly newsworthy) was a much serious attack on the Mormon faith (if not more so) than the republication of the Danish Mohammad cartoons, which could be seen as essential to understanding the current violence and controversy. Yet the Times chose to run the article on the challenge of science to LDS doctrine, while it refrained from publishing the cartoons. More importantly, the article is likely to offend more people in this country than the Danish cartoons. One has to ask, then, why such decisions were made.

Could it be that the editors of the LA Times know that Mormons, no matter how offended, are unlikely to respond with violence to an unpleasant presentation of their faith? Might it be that a conservative religious group like the LDS church is not subject to the same sort of PC protexction as Islam, with its anti-American radical cachet? I think we all know the answer to those questions.

UPDATE: Interesting interview with the article's author on Hugh Hewitt's show tonight.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Stuck On Stupid, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Voteswagon, Jo's Cafe, third world country, Adam's Blog, Bloggin' Out Loud, Blue Star Chronicles, Everyman Chronicle, Uncooperative Blogger, Right Track, Cao's Blog, Don Surber, NIF, Right Wing Nation, Outside the Beltway, Basil's Blog, Stop the ACLU, Wizbang, A Tick in the Mind's Eye, Point Five, Bullwinkle, Samantha Burns

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 999 words, total size 8 kb.

Of the many Mormons I have known in my life, I can think of none who would not qualify for inclusion of the rubric of “he/she is among the finest people I know.” Whether I think of Tammy, my childhood neighbor and friend who lost her battle to cancer over three decades ago; Betty, who volunteered time to run the base youth group when I was a kid; Beth, one of my high school/college sweethearts; friendly neighborhood commenter and blog-buddy T. F. Sterns; or my Mormon colleagues at school, I cannot ever think of a time that I have questioned the character or integrity of any of these individuals.

That said, I must respectfully say that I do not accept the distinctive tenets of their faith, which I did explore during my college years. Much of my skepticism comes from my own love of history, and my inability to reconcile the contents of LDS scriptures with the historical record as I understand it. I therefore found this article to be striking, especially insofar as it addresses the conflict between revealed knowledge, faith, and the scientific/historical record.

From the time he was a child in Peru, the Mormon Church instilled in Jose A. Loayza the conviction that he and millions of other Native Americans were descended from a lost tribe of Israel that reached the New World more than 2,000 years ago.

"We were taught all the blessings of that Hebrew lineage belonged to us and that we were special people," said Loayza, now a Salt Lake City attorney. "It not only made me feel special, but it gave me a sense of transcendental identity, an identity with God."

A few years ago, Loayza said, his faith was shaken and his identity stripped away by DNA evidence showing that the ancestors of American natives came from Asia, not the Middle East.

"I've gone through stages," he said. "Absolutely denial. Utter amazement and surprise. Anger and bitterness."

For Mormons, the lack of discernible Hebrew blood in Native Americans is no minor collision between faith and science. It burrows into the historical foundations of the Book of Mormon, a 175-year-old transcription that the church regards as literal and without error.

For those outside the faith, the depth of the church's dilemma can be explained this way: Imagine if DNA evidence revealed that the Pilgrims didn't sail from Europe to escape religious persecution but rather were part of a migration from Iceland — and that U.S. history books were wrong.

Critics want the church to admit its mistake and apologize to millions of Native Americans it converted. Church leaders have shown no inclination to do so. Indeed, they have dismissed as heresy any suggestion that Native American genetics undermine the Mormon creed.

Yet at the same time, the church has subtly promoted a fresh interpretation of the Book of Mormon intended to reconcile the DNA findings with the scriptures. This analysis is radically at odds with long-standing Mormon teachings.

Now let me say that the rest of the article continues on in a similar vein, and I found it fascinating. At the same time, I found it somewhat one-sided, and were I a member of the LDS church I suspect I might be seriously offended by the stance it takes. The article certainly raises a serious issue, but at the same time, it strikes at sacred things. I donÂ’t doubt that there will be letters to the editor and commentary of LDS blogs (and others) regarding the article, regarding the accuracy of what appeared in the LA Times. I know the LDS Church has already responded.

And that is where I see a critical contrast. We have, over the last few weeks, seen violent convulsions over a dozen editorial cartoons of questionable artistic and journalistic merit, based upon the complaint that they misrepresent the Islamic faith. There have been boycotts, demands for government (or international) censorship, threats, property damage, violence, and killings in response to the alleged blasphemy of depicting IslamÂ’s so-called prophet. I have not, as of this posting, heard news of marauding Mormon mobs in the streets of Salt Lake City protesting the publication of the article.

And therein lies the difference. When one compares the cartoons and the article, it is clear that the LA Times article on the challenge of science to the beliefs of Mormonism touches on the essentials of that faith every bit as seriously as the cartoons do on the essentials of Islam, if not more so. Furthermore, the publication of the LA Times article (which is not necessarily compellingly newsworthy) was a much serious attack on the Mormon faith (if not more so) than the republication of the Danish Mohammad cartoons, which could be seen as essential to understanding the current violence and controversy. Yet the Times chose to run the article on the challenge of science to LDS doctrine, while it refrained from publishing the cartoons. More importantly, the article is likely to offend more people in this country than the Danish cartoons. One has to ask, then, why such decisions were made.

Could it be that the editors of the LA Times know that Mormons, no matter how offended, are unlikely to respond with violence to an unpleasant presentation of their faith? Might it be that a conservative religious group like the LDS church is not subject to the same sort of PC protexction as Islam, with its anti-American radical cachet? I think we all know the answer to those questions.

UPDATE: Interesting interview with the article's author on Hugh Hewitt's show tonight.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Stuck On Stupid, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Voteswagon, Jo's Cafe, third world country, Adam's Blog, Bloggin' Out Loud, Blue Star Chronicles, Everyman Chronicle, Uncooperative Blogger, Right Track, Cao's Blog, Don Surber, NIF, Right Wing Nation, Outside the Beltway, Basil's Blog, Stop the ACLU, Wizbang, A Tick in the Mind's Eye, Point Five, Bullwinkle, Samantha Burns

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1009 words, total size 8 kb.

Jahan Sadat, the wife of assassinated Egyptian dictator Anwar Sadat, calls for press and speech censorship by government in today’s New York Daily News.

Let me be perfectly clear: I am a Muslim, and I am offended by the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed. I also am offended and deeply disturbed by the reaction these cartoons have evoked. Being offended by cartoons should never give rise to the destruction of property and the taking of another's life. There is enough violence and killing in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Congo, Sudan and in hundreds of American and European cities where crimes occur every day. I have had enough of violence and hate.

Fine so far – though you know there is a “but” coming. Here it is.

The fact is, these cartoons came at the request of a culture editor for a Danish newspaper after he discovered that a writer could not find an illustrator for his book about the Prophet. From this little bit of knowledge, the editor decided, according to his explanation in Time magazine, that the author's problem constituted a violation of free speech and expression. Instead of trying to find out why the writer was having such a difficult time and taking the time to learn why physical renderings of the Prophet are rarely, if ever, found anywhere in the history of Islam (in mosques, in the Koran, or other books about Islam and the Prophet), he decided to launch a war against censorship by staging a contest of sorts among some of Denmark's cartoonists. The result was not open debate; the result was chaos.

Yes – chaos caused not by those who published the cartoons, but instead by the mob that demanded that their beliefs and customs be respected over the beliefs and customs of those who published the cartoons.

Is the publication of sacrilegious cartoons the foolish exercise of a poorly informed editor or a harsh, unwarranted attack against one of the world's three great monotheistic religions? Is the reproduction of these cartoons nearly six months after their original publication a stand for democracy or just another assault on Islam? Is this freedom of expression or expression without responsibility?

You left one out, Mrs. Sadat – is the uproar and violence one more attempt by a barbaric religion and backwards culture to fend of Western modernity and impose itself upon others?

I am not American, but I have been spending half of my time in the U.S. since 1985. I have a home and a career here. Like Americans, I believe in freedom and democracy. I also know that freedom does not come without responsibility. I know that one should not, and cannot, yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater just because one is free to do so. Even freedom has its parameters.

And those parameters relate to actual, substantive harm, not hurt feelings or offended sensibilities. The proper response to speech we hate is more speech, not violence or the heavy hand of government censorship, as practiced by your husband’s government upon the state-controlled Egyptian press.

There is no law that says cartoonists cannot draw caricatures. There is no law that says television commentators cannot equate terrorism with Islam. There is no law that says we should not defame the religions of others. But there should be! There should be a law that says reasonable, responsible people of any faith, or no faith for that matter, cannot attack others simply because of their beliefs. There should be a law that requires us to appreciate the cultures and beliefs of our fellow human beings. In fact, there is a law: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto to you. In Islam, we say, "Do for your brother what you want for yourself."

And you and your co-religionists have been doing unto Christians and Jews and the members of other religions in a violent, oppressive manner for centuries. There is no freedom of press, no freedom of speech, and no freedom of religion in most of the Muslim world. Such a system should be attacked, mocked, and ridiculed, as should the associated religion, upon which that system of slavery and oppression is built. For that matter, even your more secular husband kept Islam well enough to oppress the Copts, whose presence in Egypt predates the founding of Islam.

Whether we are in a war of civilization or a clash of culture is a question that cannot be answered, much less discussed, as long as emotions are high and reason is blind. But it is a question we cannot afford to ignore.

Actually, Mrs. Sadat, the answer became clear on 9/11, as Muslims danced in the streets and celebrated Osama bin Ladin and his minions as heroes of the Islamic faith. Furthermore, I would remind you that for there to be a war of civilizations, it takes two. What we have instead is civilization fending off the barbarian hordes as they approach the gates of the city, a cultured people seeking to fend off the coming darkness that civilization’s failure to defeat the barbarians has always brought. The laws you propose do nothing to help fight that battle. Rather, they are an appeasement of the barbarians, and a surrender to them.

I cannot help but note two otehr things that are important here. If the Islamohorde with whom Mrs. Sadat allies herself succeeds, she will soon find herself restricted in speech, dress, and action by the verysort of folks who murdered her husband.

Also, if insults to religious figures are to be banned, one of the first items to be prohibitted will be the Quran, for it is blasphemous in the eyes of Christians due to its rejection of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ. As a result, one could argue that the very practice of Islam would becomeillegal in this country -- unless you are demanding special consideration to Muslim sensitivities alone.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Stuck On Stupid, third world country, Don Surber, Bacon Bits, Jo's Cafe, Basil's Blog, The Real Ugly American

Posted by: Greg at 12:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1020 words, total size 7 kb.

Jahan Sadat, the wife of assassinated Egyptian dictator Anwar Sadat, calls for press and speech censorship by government in todayÂ’s New York Daily News.

Let me be perfectly clear: I am a Muslim, and I am offended by the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed. I also am offended and deeply disturbed by the reaction these cartoons have evoked. Being offended by cartoons should never give rise to the destruction of property and the taking of another's life. There is enough violence and killing in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Congo, Sudan and in hundreds of American and European cities where crimes occur every day. I have had enough of violence and hate.

Fine so far – though you know there is a “but” coming. Here it is.

The fact is, these cartoons came at the request of a culture editor for a Danish newspaper after he discovered that a writer could not find an illustrator for his book about the Prophet. From this little bit of knowledge, the editor decided, according to his explanation in Time magazine, that the author's problem constituted a violation of free speech and expression. Instead of trying to find out why the writer was having such a difficult time and taking the time to learn why physical renderings of the Prophet are rarely, if ever, found anywhere in the history of Islam (in mosques, in the Koran, or other books about Islam and the Prophet), he decided to launch a war against censorship by staging a contest of sorts among some of Denmark's cartoonists. The result was not open debate; the result was chaos.

Yes – chaos caused not by those who published the cartoons, but instead by the mob that demanded that their beliefs and customs be respected over the beliefs and customs of those who published the cartoons.

Is the publication of sacrilegious cartoons the foolish exercise of a poorly informed editor or a harsh, unwarranted attack against one of the world's three great monotheistic religions? Is the reproduction of these cartoons nearly six months after their original publication a stand for democracy or just another assault on Islam? Is this freedom of expression or expression without responsibility?

You left one out, Mrs. Sadat – is the uproar and violence one more attempt by a barbaric religion and backwards culture to fend of Western modernity and impose itself upon others?

I am not American, but I have been spending half of my time in the U.S. since 1985. I have a home and a career here. Like Americans, I believe in freedom and democracy. I also know that freedom does not come without responsibility. I know that one should not, and cannot, yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater just because one is free to do so. Even freedom has its parameters.

And those parameters relate to actual, substantive harm, not hurt feelings or offended sensibilities. The proper response to speech we hate is more speech, not violence or the heavy hand of government censorship, as practiced by your husbandÂ’s government upon the state-controlled Egyptian press.

There is no law that says cartoonists cannot draw caricatures. There is no law that says television commentators cannot equate terrorism with Islam. There is no law that says we should not defame the religions of others. But there should be! There should be a law that says reasonable, responsible people of any faith, or no faith for that matter, cannot attack others simply because of their beliefs. There should be a law that requires us to appreciate the cultures and beliefs of our fellow human beings. In fact, there is a law: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto to you. In Islam, we say, "Do for your brother what you want for yourself."

And you and your co-religionists have been doing unto Christians and Jews and the members of other religions in a violent, oppressive manner for centuries. There is no freedom of press, no freedom of speech, and no freedom of religion in most of the Muslim world. Such a system should be attacked, mocked, and ridiculed, as should the associated religion, upon which that system of slavery and oppression is built. For that matter, even your more secular husband kept Islam well enough to oppress the Copts, whose presence in Egypt predates the founding of Islam.

Whether we are in a war of civilization or a clash of culture is a question that cannot be answered, much less discussed, as long as emotions are high and reason is blind. But it is a question we cannot afford to ignore.

Actually, Mrs. Sadat, the answer became clear on 9/11, as Muslims danced in the streets and celebrated Osama bin Ladin and his minions as heroes of the Islamic faith. Furthermore, I would remind you that for there to be a war of civilizations, it takes two. What we have instead is civilization fending off the barbarian hordes as they approach the gates of the city, a cultured people seeking to fend off the coming darkness that civilizationÂ’s failure to defeat the barbarians has always brought. The laws you propose do nothing to help fight that battle. Rather, they are an appeasement of the barbarians, and a surrender to them.

I cannot help but note two otehr things that are important here. If the Islamohorde with whom Mrs. Sadat allies herself succeeds, she will soon find herself restricted in speech, dress, and action by the verysort of folks who murdered her husband.

Also, if insults to religious figures are to be banned, one of the first items to be prohibitted will be the Quran, for it is blasphemous in the eyes of Christians due to its rejection of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ. As a result, one could argue that the very practice of Islam would becomeillegal in this country -- unless you are demanding special consideration to Muslim sensitivities alone.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Stuck On Stupid, third world country, Don Surber, Bacon Bits, Jo's Cafe, Basil's Blog, The Real Ugly American

Posted by: Greg at 12:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1025 words, total size 7 kb.

Jeff Jacoby sums up well the point I was trying to make last week.

SUPPOSE THAT in 2005 unknown hoodlums had firebombed 10 gay bookstores and bars in San Francisco, reducing several of them to smoking rubble. It takes no effort to imagine the alarm that would have spread through the Bay Area's gay community or the manhunt that would have been launched to find the attackers. The blasts would have been described everywhere as ''hate crimes," editorial pages would have thundered with condemnation, and public officials would have vowed to crack down on crimes against gays with unprecedented severity.

Suppose that vandals last month had attacked 10 Detroit-area mosques and halal restaurants, leaving behind shattered windows, wrecked furniture, and walls defaced with graffiti. The violence would be national front-page news. On blogs and talk radio, the horrifying outbreak of anti-Muslim bigotry would be Topic No. 1. Bills would be introduced in Congress to increase the penalties for violent ''hate crimes" -- no one would hesitate to call them by that term -- and millions of Americans would rally in solidarity with Detroit's Islamic community.

Fortunately, those sickening scenarios are only hypothetical. Here is one that is not:

In the past two weeks, 10 Baptist churches have been burned in rural Alabama. Five churches in Bibb County -- Ashby Baptist, Rehobeth Baptist, Antioch Baptist, Old Union Baptist, and Pleasant Sabine -- were torched between midnight and 3 a.m. on Feb. 3. Four days later, arsonists destroyed or badly damaged Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church in Greene County, Dancy First Baptist Church in Pickens County, and two churches in Sumter County, Galilee Baptist and Spring Valley Baptist. On Saturday, Beaverton Freewill Baptist Church in northwest Alabama became the 10th house of worship to go up in flames.

Ten arson attacks against 10 churches -- all of them Baptist, all in small Alabama towns, all in the space of eight days: If anything is a hate crime, obviously this is.
Or is it? ''We're looking to make sure this is not a hate crime and that we do everything that we need to do," FBI Special Agent Charles Regan told reporters in Birmingham. Make sure this is not a hate crime? If 10 Brooklyn synagogues went up in flames in a little over a week, wouldn't investigators start from the assumption that the arson was motivated by hatred of Jews? If 10 Cuban-American shops and restaurants in Miami were deliberately burned to the ground, wouldn't the obvious presumption be that anti-Cuban animus was involved?

Apparently Baptist churches are different.

''I don't see any evidence that these fires are hate crimes," Mark Potok, a director of the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, told the Los Angeles Times. ''Anti-Christian crimes are exceedingly rare in the South."

But are anti-Christian crimes really that rare? Or are they simply less interesting to the left, which prefers to cast Christians as victimizers, not victims?

A search of the SPLC's website, for example, turns up no references to Jay Scott Ballinger, a self-described Satan worshiper deeply hostile to Christianity, who was sentenced to life in prison for burning 26 churches between 1994 and 1999. Yet if those weren't ''hate crimes," what were they?

Running through the coverage of the latest church burnings is an almost palpable yearning to cast the story in racial terms. ''Federal investigators are looking for two white men for questioning in connection with a string of church fires in central Alabama," began a National Public Radio story on Friday. ''Race may be a factor." In fact, race seems not to be a factor at all -- five of the churches had mostly white congregations, five were largely black. To a media ever ready to expose racism in American culture, the arsonists' lack of regard for skin color must be maddening.

In 1996, a spate of fires in the South was wildly and falsely trumpeted in the media as an eruption of racism. ''We are facing an epidemic of terror," said Deval Patrick, the Clinton administration's assistant attorney general for civil rights. But as it turned out, there was no racist conspiracy. More than a third of the arsonists arrested were black, and more than half the churches burned were white. So perhaps it is progress of a sort that, this time around, the media are keeping in check the urge to cry ''Racism!"

But real progress will come only when we abandon the whole misguided notion of ''hate crimes," which deems certain crimes more deserving of outrage and punishment not because of what the criminal did, but because of the group to which the victim belonged. The burning of a church is a hateful act regardless of the congregants' skin color. That some people bend over backward not to say so is a disgrace.

Thank you, Mr. Jacoby, for saying in much clearer terms the very things I wanted to communicate earlier.

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 828 words, total size 5 kb.

The editors of the Daily Illini who stood up for press freedom abroad have found out that it may not exist on their own campus

The editor in chief of a student-led newspaper serving the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has been suspended for printing cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad that, when published in Europe, enraged Muslims and led to violent protests in the Middle East and Asia.

Editor Acton Gorton and his opinions editor, Chuck Prochaska, were relieved of their duties at The Daily Illini on Tuesday while a task force investigates "the internal decision-making and communication" that led to the publishing of the cartoons, according to a statement by the newspaper's publisher and general manager, Mary Cory.

Gorton said he expects to be fired at the conclusion of the investigation, which is expected to take two weeks.

"I pretty much have an idea how this is going to run, and this is a thinly veiled attempt to remove me from my position," said Gorton, a U. of I. senior who took the newspaper's helm Jan. 1. "I am feeling very betrayed, and I feel like the people who I thought were my friends and supporters didn't back me up."

Looks to me like the Islamocensors may win this one, and the rights of Americans will be diminished.

More at Michelle Malkin, including DI contact information and this cache of the original page.

OTHERS WRITING: Stop the ACLU, Slapstick Politics, Right Voices, Super Fun Power Hour, Tearing Down The Wall, Hyscience,, Fullosseous Flap's Dental Blog, Small Town Veteran, ProCynic, Marathon Pundit, Clark Mountain Musings, Independent Christian Voice, Sweet Spirits of Ammonia, Blackfive, Noisy Room, Blogs, Radaractive

Posted by: Greg at 06:05 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 4 kb.

I know nothing of the man's politics beyond what is in the story, but I do like this move by one Italian politician.

ROME (Reuters) - Italy's Reform Minister Roberto Calderoli has had T-shirts made emblazoned with cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad in a move that could embarrass Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government.

Calderoli, a member of the anti-immigrant Northern League party, told Ansa news agency on Tuesday that the West had to stand up against Islamist extremists and offered to hand out T-shirts to anyone who wanted them.

"I have had T-shirts made with the cartoons that have upset Islam and I will start wearing them today," Ansa quoted Calderoli as saying.

He said the T-shirts were not meant to be a provocation but added that he saw no point trying to appease extremists.

"We have to put an end to this story that we can talk to these people. They only want to humiliate people. Full stop. And what are we becoming? The civilization of melted butter?" Calderoli said.

I've said this all along -- while there is an argument to be made that the original decision to print the cartoons was wrong, the violence and threats of violence emanating from the barbaric segment of islam made it incumbant upon me and others to reprint them as a sign of support for free speech. That is the same mesage i hear Calderoli sending with the decision to print and distribute these shirts.

I wonder if they would send one to me in Texas?

Posted by: Greg at 05:58 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

1 As I am also a member of "The Texas Connection" Blogroll, I decided to check you out. I've been meaning to check out all the bloggers on it, but haven't gotten around to all of them yet.

Good post. This guy does have a point, doesn't he?! I am truly very tired of hearing that all we need to do is "use diplomacy" on these extremist Muslims! If those who think so want to go over there and try it, well then, "good luck" is all I can say to them, except I hope they have settled their estates.

Posted by: Gayle at Tue Feb 14 06:41:01 2006 (tUcby)

2 Ya gotta admire a leader with BALLS...

Posted by: TexasFred at Tue Feb 14 06:48:22 2006 (qX3iX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

This is most unfortunate, and I condemn it unambiguously and without reservation.

Copenhagen - Unknown assailants defiled the Muslim section of a cemetery near the Danish town of Esbjerg over the weekend, Radio DR reported on Sunday.

Some 25 grave sites were completely destroyed as the attackers smashed or overturned gravestones and trashed plants, DR reported.

Graves in the Christian part of the cemetery remained untouched.

Police said that there was no indication of the attackers' motives or where they came from.

Public life in Denmark has been dominated in recent weeks by the worldwide protests by Muslims over caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed that were originally published in the country's Jyllands Posten newspaper last September.

Whoever did this defiles the cause of freedom as practiced in the West -- by behaving in a barbaric manner no different than a member of the Religion of Barbarism.

UPDATEL Quotes from Danish PM at the Washington Post

Posted by: Greg at 03:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm offended, and my religious and cultural sensitivities are hurt by this act of intolerance. I think I'll go stone a mosque or burn down a diplomatic building!

Nearly two dozen black-veiled Muslim women stormed gift and stationery shops Friday in Kashmir, burning Valentine's Day cards and posters to protest a holiday they say imposes Western values on Muslim youth

No one was hurt in the half-dozen or so incidents, and police cordoned off the area to prevent the women from marching through Srinagar's main shopping district to continue their ransacking.

The women were from the Kashmiri Islamic group Dukhtaran-e-Millat, or Daughters of the Community, Kashmir's only women's separatist group, whose members are also known for their fiercely conservative social views.

"We will not let anyone sell these cards or celebrate Valentine's Day," said Asiya Andrabi, the group's leader, as she held a burning poster in her hand. "These Western gimmicks are corrupting our kids and taking them away from their roots."

She said that the raids were carried out "not to harm anyone but to make them realize that this is against Islam's teachings."

So what you are trying to say, you daughter of a pig, is that everyone must conform to your stilted narrow view of your religion. Failure to comply with your faith will result in acts of violence and vandalism.

Would you care to explain to me why I should have a single ounce of respect for you and your Religion of Violence?

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Clark Mountain Musings, Kim Priestap, Queen of all Evil, ZardozZ, Noisy Room, OKIE on the LAM, This isn't writing, Alpine Summit, LeatherPenguin, California Conservative, Sweet Spirits of Ammonia, Maggie's Farm

Posted by: Greg at 06:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 3 kb.

Maybe these boys will get to heaven and find out that they really get a 72-year-old virgin, not 72 virgins.

Indonesian Muslim hard-liners signed a pact saying they were ready to die in defence of the Prophet Muhammad, while others burned tyres in streets amid fresh protests in the world's most populous Muslim nation.

A weekly news magazine issued an apology after reprinting several of the 12 cartoons of the prophet that have triggered sometime violent protests across Indonesia and the rest of the Islamic world.

The cartoons were first published in a Danish paper in September, but have since appeared in papers around the world.

About 175 students at an Islamic boarding school in Surabaya city have signed a pledge saying they are "ready to die" to defend the honour of the prophet, said headmaster Yusuf Muhajir.

Such pledges are traditional in Indonesia, and are considered to be symbolic.

He said the students would demand an apology from any Danish citizens they met in Surabaya, the capital of east Java province, and jokingly said they would be "slapped" if they refused to do so.

Guys -- be offended all you want. Boycott whoever you feel you need to boycott. But violence against someone because of their nationality is unreasonable. Heck, if it were, then Americans would have been justified in acts of violence against random Muslims in the streed in the wake of 9/11. Instead, most of us went out of our way to show courtesy and respect to inocent Muslims. Were we wrong?

What is clear is that you and your co-religionists are certainly making the whole "Religion of Peace" thing look like an untruth.

Posted by: Greg at 06:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

But instead, German authorities have brought a case against this German who engaged in a bit of speech against Islam.

BERLIN - A German businessman who printed the name of the Koran on toilet paper and offered the rolls for sale to mosques and media will face trial for disturbing the peace.

The man, identified only as Manfred van H., is scheduled to go on trial Feb. 23 at a court in Luedinghausen in western Germany, Jochen Dyhr, a spokesman for judicial authorities in nearby Muenster, said Thursday.

The businessman last summer printed sheets of toilet paper with the sentence "Koran, the Holy Qur'aen" and sent them to about 15 mosques, television stations and magazines.

In an accompanying letter, authorities say, he asserted that Islam's holy book is a "cookbook for terrorists" that calls for acts of violence.

He proposed that a "memorial to all victims of Islamic terror" be set up, financed by sales of the toilet paper - an offer that prosecutors say he also posted on the Internet.

The businessman's offer led to criminal complaints and telephone death threats against him.

Prosecutors argue that the man's actions overstepped the legally guaranteed freedom to criticize other religions. They say he has cited his right to freedom of opinion and artistic expression, and said his aim was to provoke rather than actually sell the toilet paper.

Offensive? Yeah, I suppose, but not to a degree that the full force of government’s jackboots should be brought down on this guy. And the mere fact that he may not have been serious about selling the toilet paper strikes me as irrelevant – in fact, it seems to me that the lack of commercial motivation makes what he did more worthy of protection. Should he have sent it to mosques? No -- but absent a threat, we are talking about an offense based upon expression of an idea.

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

But instead, German authorities have brought a case against this German who engaged in a bit of speech against Islam.

BERLIN - A German businessman who printed the name of the Koran on toilet paper and offered the rolls for sale to mosques and media will face trial for disturbing the peace.

The man, identified only as Manfred van H., is scheduled to go on trial Feb. 23 at a court in Luedinghausen in western Germany, Jochen Dyhr, a spokesman for judicial authorities in nearby Muenster, said Thursday.

The businessman last summer printed sheets of toilet paper with the sentence "Koran, the Holy Qur'aen" and sent them to about 15 mosques, television stations and magazines.

In an accompanying letter, authorities say, he asserted that Islam's holy book is a "cookbook for terrorists" that calls for acts of violence.

He proposed that a "memorial to all victims of Islamic terror" be set up, financed by sales of the toilet paper - an offer that prosecutors say he also posted on the Internet.

The businessman's offer led to criminal complaints and telephone death threats against him.

Prosecutors argue that the man's actions overstepped the legally guaranteed freedom to criticize other religions. They say he has cited his right to freedom of opinion and artistic expression, and said his aim was to provoke rather than actually sell the toilet paper.

Offensive? Yeah, I suppose, but not to a degree that the full force of government’s jackboots should be brought down on this guy. And the mere fact that he may not have been serious about selling the toilet paper strikes me as irrelevant – in fact, it seems to me that the lack of commercial motivation makes what he did more worthy of protection. Should he have sent it to mosques? No -- but absent a threat, we are talking about an offense based upon expression of an idea.

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

Bravo to the official student publication of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana for standing up for press freedom around the world.

The University of Illinois student newspaper Thursday published six caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that have sparked violent protests in the Middle East and Asia.

Nearly every major U.S. newspaper, including the Chicago Tribune, has not published the cartoons. They were first published in late September by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and they were reprinted in other European publications in recent weeks.

While UN Secretary General Kofi Annan chastised newspapers Thursday that continue to publish the cartoons, Daily Illini editor-in-chief Acton Gorton said he decided to print them so students could better understand the Muslim response.

"All across this nation, editors are gripped in fear of printing ... for fear of the reaction. As a journalist, this flies in the face of everything I hold dear. By refusing to print these editorial cartoons, we are preventing an important issue from being debated by the public," Gorton wrote in a column next to the drawings.

It is a shame that a once-great newspaper like the Tribune is now reduced to cowering in fear while student publications and the internet do its job instead. And it is also a shame that the University administration for this expression of disapproval.

In a letter to the Daily Illini to be published Friday, U. of I. Chancellor Richard Herman wrote that he is "saddened" that the newspaper decided to publish the cartoons. He suggested that the editors could have informed the public by giving readers a Web link to the cartoons instead.

"I believe that the DI could have engaged its readers in legitimate debate about the issues surrounding the cartoons' publication in Denmark without publishing them," he wrote. "It is possible, for instance, to editorialize about pornography without publishing pornographic pictures."

And here I thought the University was all about widening the horizons of students, exposing them to diverse ideas on a variety of topics, opening their eyes to multiple perspectives, as well as training adults to function in an open and democratic society. I guess that U of I no longer performs those functions, and instead is a therapeutic resource for mental, emotional, and intellectual cripples who need to be shielded from influences that might upset or offend them, rather than provoking thought and discussion. And that Chancellor Herman doesnÂ’t know the difference between pornography and social commentary is indicative of his lack of qualification for his position.

And then there is this gratuitous quote at the end.

U. of I. senior Ehav Yasin, a Muslim student from Carpentersville, said he was upset by the Daily Illini's decision.

So what? Who cares? Yasin’s emotional weakness is irrelevant to the decision of the Daily Illini to fully inform its readers about a major international story. It is clear that despite years of higher education, he really has learned nothing about the values that undergird the American republic. Hopefully he will mature during his senior year and become a functioning member of society – or, barring that, perhaps he will exercise his right to relocate to another country with values more in line with his own.

Here's a cache of the page.

UPFATE: Bravo to the Daily Tarheel at UNC for publishing its own cartoon.

Muslims opposed to the First Amendment are outraged.

The Muslim Students Association at the University of North Carolina on Friday asked the campus' student newspaper to apologize for publishing an original cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

"The intention of bigotry was clear," the association wrote in a letter to The Daily Tar Heel. "One must question the DTH's ethics in advancing a widely protested issue to cause a riot of their own. The MSA not only found this cartoon derogatory but is also shocked at the editor's allowance of its publication _ one that incites hate in the current political and social context."

Caricatures of Muhammad, including one that shows the prophet with a bomb-shaped turban, were published first in a Danish paper in September, then reprinted in European papers in recent weeks in the name of press freedom. Their publication has sparked violent protests in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Islam is interpreted to forbid any illustrations of Muhammad for fear they could lead to idolatry.

The paper's editor strikes exactly the right position between sensitivity and journalistic integrity.

The cartoon published in The Daily Tar Heel Thursday was drawn by a cartoonist at the paper, Philip McFee. It shows Muhammad appearing to decry both Denmark's role in the controversy and the violence that has erupted since.

Daily Tar Heel editor Ryan Tuck said the newspaper wanted to challenge fellow students to think about the issue. He said while he has apologized personally to individuals who told him the cartoon offended, the newspaper will not apologize.

"The point of any cartoon in any newspaper is to challenge belief systems," Tuck said. "We knew it would offend, but that doesn't make it the explicit goal of the cartoon."

And as usual, a sensitivity fascist from the university administration has to criticize.

The Daily Tar Heel has a long history of journalistic independence, but university officials would hope that it would use restraint around a topic such as this one, which is hurtful and offensive to members of the campus community, said Margaret Jablonski, vice chancellor for student affairs at UNC-Chapel Hill.

"Many of our national media outlets chose not to publish the original pictures or cartoons and we believe our student paper should have used the same editorial judgement," Jablonski said.

I guess that the administration has forgotten that a university is a place to learn, to grow, and to have one's beliefs challenged. Isn't that what we conservaitives are always told?

OPEN TRACKBACKING: bRight & Early, Don Surber, Adam's Blog, Basil's Blog, Stuck on Stupid, Bacon Bits, Jo's Cafe, third world country, The Real Ugly American, Everyman's Chronicles, Liberal Wrong Wing, Uncooperative Blogger, Blue Star Chronicles, Conservative Cat, Stop The ACLU.

Posted by: Greg at 02:06 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1012 words, total size 8 kb.

Let no one tell me that Iran has any claim to being part of the civilized world. This story is sufficient to dispel any and all illusions on that matter.

Tehran, Iran, Jan. 07 – An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.

The state-run daily Etemaad reported on Saturday that 18-year-old Nazanin confessed to stabbing one of three men who had attacked the pair along with their boyfriends while they were spending some time in a park west of the Iranian capital in March 2005.

Nazanin, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, said that after the three men started to throw stones at them, the two girls’ boyfriends quickly escaped on their motorbikes leaving the pair helpless.

She described how the three men pushed her and her 16-year-old niece Somayeh onto the ground and tried to rape them, and said that she took out a knife from her pocket and stabbed one of the men in the hand.

As the girls tried to escape, the men once again attacked them, and at this point, Nazanin said, she stabbed one of the men in the chest. The teenage girl, however, broke down in tears in court as she explained that she had no intention of killing the man but was merely defending herself and her younger niece from rape, the report said.

The court, however, issued on Tuesday a sentence for Nazanin to be hanged to death.

The facts were never really in dispute – they were simply irrelevant. After all, Islam teaches that sexual assault victims deserve it. Resistance can therefore never count as self-defense, and any injury done to the attacker is therefore seen as having been committed upon an innocent victim.

The strange thing to me, though, is that I don’t hear any of the feminists raising an outcry about the status of women in the Islamic world – especially in cases like this one. Could it be that these brutalized souls just don’t matter to them as much as the sacrament of abortion or Bush-bashing?

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.

Let no one tell me that Iran has any claim to being part of the civilized world. This story is sufficient to dispel any and all illusions on that matter.

Tehran, Iran, Jan. 07 – An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.

The state-run daily Etemaad reported on Saturday that 18-year-old Nazanin confessed to stabbing one of three men who had attacked the pair along with their boyfriends while they were spending some time in a park west of the Iranian capital in March 2005.

Nazanin, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, said that after the three men started to throw stones at them, the two girlsÂ’ boyfriends quickly escaped on their motorbikes leaving the pair helpless.

She described how the three men pushed her and her 16-year-old niece Somayeh onto the ground and tried to rape them, and said that she took out a knife from her pocket and stabbed one of the men in the hand.

As the girls tried to escape, the men once again attacked them, and at this point, Nazanin said, she stabbed one of the men in the chest. The teenage girl, however, broke down in tears in court as she explained that she had no intention of killing the man but was merely defending herself and her younger niece from rape, the report said.

The court, however, issued on Tuesday a sentence for Nazanin to be hanged to death.

The facts were never really in dispute – they were simply irrelevant. After all, Islam teaches that sexual assault victims deserve it. Resistance can therefore never count as self-defense, and any injury done to the attacker is therefore seen as having been committed upon an innocent victim.

The strange thing to me, though, is that I don’t hear any of the feminists raising an outcry about the status of women in the Islamic world – especially in cases like this one. Could it be that these brutalized souls just don’t matter to them as much as the sacrament of abortion or Bush-bashing?

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 2 kb.

Are these folks completely clueless about the church fires in Alabama?

Four churches in Pickens, Greene and Sumter counties burned early Tuesday, two of which were destroyed. Five churches burned in Bibb County, about 60 miles from Tuesday's fires; three of them were destroyed.
Austin Banks of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the federal agency that investigates arson, said there were “a lot of common things involved in all the fires” that point to the suspects targeting religion, although he declined to go into detail about the evidence.

Residents and law enforcement officials confirmed that fires at some of the churches started at the pulpit. They also said church doors had been kicked in.
Banks did not say the suspects were targeting the Baptist faith, the predominant denomination in the region.

He said it does not look like there's a racial motivation in the burnings. The four churches that burned Tuesday have black congregations, but only one of the five Bibb County churches was predominantly black.

You don’t suppose it could be hatred of Christians, do you? After all, all the targets are Christian churches, and appear centered on the pulpit.

But drawing such a conclusion might require a conclusion that we have hate crimes here. Selwyn Duke has this to say on the matter.

Nine Baptist churches, with both black and white congregations, have been burned in a relatively small geographical area within a very narrow time-frame. Okay, the fact that they are all Baptist may not necessarily be significant since it’s the dominant denomination in that area. In other words, it would not require too great a statistical fluke to target nine churches in these counties and happen upon only Baptist ones. Although it should give one pause for thought.

However, to the best of my knowledge, even in the Bible Belt, churches constitute only a very small percentage of the buildings. I suspect that Alabamans have also built schools, stores of various kinds, municipal buildings, residences, offices, barns, warehouses, restaurants and lots of other types of structures. Thus, while I’m no mathematician, I think there are pretty long odds against randomly targeting nine buildings and happening upon only churches. If Morris Dees and company can’t grasp this, they surely didn’t amass their organization’s $120 million fortune through wagering. Save incense and decorative candles, you don’t burn things you like. This was a hateful act. So, SPLC, don’t pour gasoline down my back and tell me it’s rainin’.

Next, could you imagine the reaction if nine synagogues or mosques had been thus burned? The monolithic mainstream media would elevate the story to prominence and exhaust themselves pontificating about how dreadful these hate-crimes were. And the posturing by public officials, oh, the posturing, it would be intense enough to induce backache.

As for this story, there’s nothing for the media to glom on to. If only black churches were in the crosshairs, there would be the white bigotry angle. The media can’t get enough of that. But the fact that they’re all Christian? Please! Such concerns aren’t in their programming… in either sense of the word.

So forgive me for saying it, but the lack of interest in the bias-crime angle seems based upon the bias of law-enforcement and the media, who cannot fathom that Christians might be targeted by those who hate them – Muslims, Satanists, secularists, or socialists – and that those crimes are every bit as deserving of serious condemnation as those committed by cross-burning, sheet-wearing, mouth-breathing racists. And all that is needed for this to be recognized is a paradigm-shift on the part of our nation’s opinion leaders.

Posted by: Greg at 10:39 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 610 words, total size 4 kb.

Are these folks completely clueless about the church fires in Alabama?

Four churches in Pickens, Greene and Sumter counties burned early Tuesday, two of which were destroyed. Five churches burned in Bibb County, about 60 miles from Tuesday's fires; three of them were destroyed.
Austin Banks of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the federal agency that investigates arson, said there were “a lot of common things involved in all the fires” that point to the suspects targeting religion, although he declined to go into detail about the evidence.

Residents and law enforcement officials confirmed that fires at some of the churches started at the pulpit. They also said church doors had been kicked in.
Banks did not say the suspects were targeting the Baptist faith, the predominant denomination in the region.

He said it does not look like there's a racial motivation in the burnings. The four churches that burned Tuesday have black congregations, but only one of the five Bibb County churches was predominantly black.

You donÂ’t suppose it could be hatred of Christians, do you? After all, all the targets are Christian churches, and appear centered on the pulpit.

But drawing such a conclusion might require a conclusion that we have hate crimes here. Selwyn Duke has this to say on the matter.

Nine Baptist churches, with both black and white congregations, have been burned in a relatively small geographical area within a very narrow time-frame. Okay, the fact that they are all Baptist may not necessarily be significant since itÂ’s the dominant denomination in that area. In other words, it would not require too great a statistical fluke to target nine churches in these counties and happen upon only Baptist ones. Although it should give one pause for thought.

However, to the best of my knowledge, even in the Bible Belt, churches constitute only a very small percentage of the buildings. I suspect that Alabamans have also built schools, stores of various kinds, municipal buildings, residences, offices, barns, warehouses, restaurants and lots of other types of structures. Thus, while IÂ’m no mathematician, I think there are pretty long odds against randomly targeting nine buildings and happening upon only churches. If Morris Dees and company canÂ’t grasp this, they surely didnÂ’t amass their organizationÂ’s $120 million fortune through wagering. Save incense and decorative candles, you donÂ’t burn things you like. This was a hateful act. So, SPLC, donÂ’t pour gasoline down my back and tell me itÂ’s raininÂ’.

Next, could you imagine the reaction if nine synagogues or mosques had been thus burned? The monolithic mainstream media would elevate the story to prominence and exhaust themselves pontificating about how dreadful these hate-crimes were. And the posturing by public officials, oh, the posturing, it would be intense enough to induce backache.

As for this story, thereÂ’s nothing for the media to glom on to. If only black churches were in the crosshairs, there would be the white bigotry angle. The media canÂ’t get enough of that. But the fact that theyÂ’re all Christian? Please! Such concerns arenÂ’t in their programmingÂ… in either sense of the word.

So forgive me for saying it, but the lack of interest in the bias-crime angle seems based upon the bias of law-enforcement and the media, who cannot fathom that Christians might be targeted by those who hate them – Muslims, Satanists, secularists, or socialists – and that those crimes are every bit as deserving of serious condemnation as those committed by cross-burning, sheet-wearing, mouth-breathing racists. And all that is needed for this to be recognized is a paradigm-shift on the part of our nation’s opinion leaders.

Posted by: Greg at 10:39 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 614 words, total size 4 kb.

I think this French cartoon, scheduled to appear tomorrow, may best sum up the current behavior of Muslims in relation to the Danish cartoon controversy. Fortunately, the French courts are allowing it to run.

A French court refused to order the confiscation of a magazine on Tuesday which local Muslim organisations tried to prevent from publishing controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

The satirical weekly Charlie-Hebdo was due to publish on Wednesday 12 cartoons originally printed by the Danish paper Jyllens-Posten which have caused outrage in the Muslim world.

"This is good news to us all," Charlie-Hebdo editor Philippe Val told reporters after the ruling.

"We are defending the principle of the right for caricature and satire."

The judges rejected demands by French Muslim organisations, including the French Council of Muslim Faith (CFCM) and the Grand Mosques of Paris and Lyon, which had argued the paper was undermining the principle of the respect of faiths.

The court did not rule on the contents of the claim, but rejected it on a technicality, saying the plaintiffs had failed to follow several points of procedure in filing their suit.

Sources at Charlie-Hebdo said the weekly's offices and some staff had been placed under police protection ahead of Wednesday's publication, which will also feature a cartoon of Prophet Muhammad burying his face in his hands and saying: "It's hard to be loved by fools".

That really does say it all.

UPDATE -- 2/8/2006 -- Here it is!

The satirical French weekly Charlie-Hebdo also printed a new drawing under the headline "Muhammad Overwhelmed by the Fundamentalists" that showed the prophet with his head in his hands, remarking, "It's hard to be loved by idiots."

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

It is easy to put the pastor on the pedestal, and to forget that he (or she) is a human being with interests beyond the church. Take a look at one young man who has melded that interest with ministry in an unexpected and delightful way.

WEST FRANKFORT - Students of St. John's School, their parents and other members of the parish rocked the night away last weekend at the Knights of Columbus Hall as a part of the celebration of Catholic Schools Week.

The occasion was the last in an annual national weeklong series of events kicked off locally with a children's Mass followed by a parish brunch on the last Sunday in January. Throughout the week, students broke up the ordinary school day routine with crazy hat and crazy hair day, and gathered with parents and siblings on Wednesday night for Family Reading Night.

Friday ended the school week with visits from motivational speakers and Friday night's party provided by the Parents Group, where the parish was entertained by their very own Father Trevor Murry and his band.

The band, Father Trevor and the Little Flowers, was a huge treat for the students who got the opportunity to see their parish priest in a different light and reacted as they might toward a celebrated rock star.

Most of the band members had traveled to the performance from Belleville, where Murry, a native of Pinckneyville, served as assistant before being named pastor at St. John's. His current duties also include serving as priest at Sacred Heart in Zeigler and St. Aloysius in Royalton.

"All the members of the band are parishioners at St. Teresa's Parish in Belleville, which is named for St. Teresa of the Little Flower," Murry said, explaining the unusual name for a band made up of adult men and women. "We started almost accidentally. We used to get together and practice music to be performed at church, and after practice, we'd stay around and start playing a lot of classic rock. We began playing at parish events like the parish picnic, and eventually we started playing at a jazz club once a month."

During my last year as a seminarian I met Trevor, a young man who was at the beginning of his path towards priesthood. We were different ages and at different stages of our lives as well as different seminaries, so I never really got to know him, though he seemed like he was a good guy.

It was therefore a pleasant surprise this morning when, doing a quick glance at the website for one of my old hometown newspapers, I ran into this article. It is sort of cute, and I just feel like indulging myself by putting it out for your consideration. Enjoy!

Posted by: Greg at 12:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.

Here – look at this picture of the Virgin Mary made from porno shots and surrounded by elephant shit instead.

Is this really the same newspaper that made this statement only one day ago?

The New York Times and much of the rest of the nation's news media have reported on the cartoons but refrained from showing them. That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words.

The stench of such rank hypocrisy certainly transcends that of the materials used to create the “artwork” pictured – especially since the picture is also “so easy to describe in words.”

But then again, the editors of this once great newspaper feel reasonably certain that they are unlikely to face violence from offended Catholics or other Christians, so a different standard applies.

HAT TIP -- NRO's TKS

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, bRight & Early, Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, third world country, Don Surber, Jo's Cafe, Basil's Blog, Bloggin' Out Loud, Blue Star Chronicles.

Posted by: Greg at 12:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 2 kb.

Here – look at this picture of the Virgin Mary made from porno shots and surrounded by elephant shit instead.

Is this really the same newspaper that made this statement only one day ago?

The New York Times and much of the rest of the nation's news media have reported on the cartoons but refrained from showing them. That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words.

The stench of such rank hypocrisy certainly transcends that of the materials used to create the “artwork” pictured – especially since the picture is also “so easy to describe in words.”

But then again, the editors of this once great newspaper feel reasonably certain that they are unlikely to face violence from offended Catholics or other Christians, so a different standard applies.

HAT TIP -- NRO's TKS

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, bRight & Early, Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, third world country, Don Surber, Jo's Cafe, Basil's Blog, Bloggin' Out Loud, Blue Star Chronicles.

Posted by: Greg at 12:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

Ed Lasky points out this little bit of NY Times hypocrisy surrounding the Danish cartoons of Muhammad.

The New York Times runs an editorial today objecting to newspapers publishing the cartoons that caricatured Mohammed. The Times feels that the cartoons were needlessly insensitive and pats itself on the back for refraining from running them.

Given the self-righteous moral preening of today’s editoral, it is strange that the Times did not have a problem accepting money from an anti-Israel group, running this anti-Semitic cartoon (scroll down to the bottom of the page) regarding Israel supporters in America.

The cartoon acceptable to the Times depicts a hairy gorilla holding an Israeli flag while sitting atop the US Capitol.

Double standards at work? Apparently, the Times will not run a caricature to inform its readers about the nature of the issue inflaming Muslims, but will gladly take money to run a cartoon that is laden with anti-Semitic motifs and imagery. Protect Muslim sensitivities, but propagate anti-Semitism.

The New York Times has a lot of questions to answer about its editorial “standards.”

Will it take a rioting mob of angry Jews – or a bombing run by the IAF – to get the NY Times to drop its double standard? Or will it finally come “clean” and admit that, despite its Jewish ownership, its editorial policy is fundamentally anti-Semitic, and that it is staffed with Islamophiles who don’t mind taking dirty money to run cartoons as reprehensible as those of Nazi Germany or the modern-day Arab press?

Posted by: Greg at 01:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Ed Lasky points out this little bit of NY Times hypocrisy surrounding the Danish cartoons of Muhammad.

The New York Times runs an editorial today objecting to newspapers publishing the cartoons that caricatured Mohammed. The Times feels that the cartoons were needlessly insensitive and pats itself on the back for refraining from running them.

Given the self-righteous moral preening of todayÂ’s editoral, it is strange that the Times did not have a problem accepting money from an anti-Israel group, running this anti-Semitic cartoon (scroll down to the bottom of the page) regarding Israel supporters in America.

The cartoon acceptable to the Times depicts a hairy gorilla holding an Israeli flag while sitting atop the US Capitol.

Double standards at work? Apparently, the Times will not run a caricature to inform its readers about the nature of the issue inflaming Muslims, but will gladly take money to run a cartoon that is laden with anti-Semitic motifs and imagery. Protect Muslim sensitivities, but propagate anti-Semitism.

The New York Times has a lot of questions to answer about its editorial “standards.”

Will it take a rioting mob of angry Jews – or a bombing run by the IAF – to get the NY Times to drop its double standard? Or will it finally come “clean” and admit that, despite its Jewish ownership, its editorial policy is fundamentally anti-Semitic, and that it is staffed with Islamophiles who don’t mind taking dirty money to run cartoons as reprehensible as those of Nazi Germany or the modern-day Arab press?

Posted by: Greg at 01:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

Surely there was a better way to deal with this.

The Rev. Jimmy McCants was delivering a sermon titled "Can We Mend a Broken Heart?" on Sunday morning when Chicago Police arrested the 54-year-old pastor on a misdemeanor trespassing charge, outraging some members of his congregation.

McCants, pastor of Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church at 356 E. 109th, was freed in lieu of $1,000 bail at about 4:30 p.m., after spending about five hours in the Calumet District police station being processed for his arrest, which was captured by a church member's video camera.

"My church is the house of the Lord, and I had not committed a criminal act," McCants said. "We were in service. . . . We're going to see what the lawyers say. I intend to go back next Sunday."

The arrest stems from an internal dispute among members of the church, said Monique Bond, spokeswoman for the Chicago Police Department.

The church's board of directors told police that McCants was fired Dec. 24, Bond said. On Jan. 6, a woman affiliated with the church signed a police complaint saying McCants had been trespassing on church grounds, Bond said.

"There were other witnesses [Sunday] who said he should not be there," Bond said.

The woman who filed the complaint against McCants could not be reached for comment.

"It happened because he was not supposed to be on the premises," said a board member, Willie Miller, who refused further comment.

The arrest was questioned by the head of a governing authority for Lutheran churches in the Chicago area.

Police apparently took the board's word that McCants was fired, said the Rev. William H. Ameiss, president of the Northern Illinois District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod based in west suburban Hillside.

But Ameiss said he thinks the board removed McCants in violation of the Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church's constitution, which requires the board to go to the synod to resolve a dispute over a pastor.

Now I will grant that there are questions of church polity that I am not versed in – but under the circumstances, I would think it would have behooved the police to wait until the service was over to make any arrest. And I won't even get into the issue of of the unedifying, unChristian actions of those involved in having their pastor/ex-pastor hauled out of the church in cuffs during the service.

Posted by: Greg at 01:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 407 words, total size 3 kb.

I guess it is back to the dark ages in the Islamic world (if they ever left).

The Pakistan Medical Association has vowed not to prescribe medicines from firms based in some European countries where controversial cartoons portraying the Prophet Mohammed were published, said Shahid Rao, the body's general secretary for Punjab province.

The association will boycott drugs from Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and France to protest the 'blasphemous' drawings, Rao said.
'We have taken a unanimous decision and it will be immediately implemented in Pakistan,' Rao told AFP.

'Doctors in the country are very motivated on this issue,' he said. 'We would use alternate medicines in future till a public apology comes from these countries.'

Pharmacists have also vowed not to sell such medicines, Rao said.

The association is advising patients against using medicines from the offending countries if they are mistakenly prescribed by doctors, he added.

Because after all, better that many should die than a couple of cartoons appear in the press.

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin)

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

Maybe there are a few Muslims with a lick of common sense out there. Rather than respond with violence, they decided to go after a European icon -- Holocaust victim Anne Frank

A Belgian-Dutch Islamic political organization posted anti-Jewish cartoons on its Web site in response to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that appeared in Danish papers last year and offended many Muslims.

The cartoons were posted on the Arab European League's site on Saturday. It was not working Sunday morning because of exceeded bandwidth.

The cartoons depicting Mohammed wearing a turban-shaped bomb were first published in Denmark, and then in newspapers elsewhere in Europe in a show of solidarity with press freedoms.

The Islamic site carried a disclaimer saying the images were being shown as part of an exercise in free speech rather than to endorse their content - just as European newspapers have reprinted the Danish cartoons.

One of the AEL cartoons displayed an image of Dutch Holocaust victim Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler, and another questioned whether the Holocaust actually occurred.

Dyab Abou Jahjah, the party's founder and best-known figure, defended the action on the Dutch television program Nova Saturday.

"Europe has its sacred cows, even if they're not religious sacred cows," he told the program.

I won't reproduce this vile cartoon on this site in all its glory, though I make it available for those who choose to click the thumbnail below.

Hey, at least these folks are behaving in something resembling a civilized fashion, even if it involves perpetuating the anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial common in the Arab press. Having Europe's best known Holocaust victim raped by Hitler just isn't that shocking, when considered in that context.

Besides -- the Hadith tells us that Muhammad raped a 9-year-old in addition to murdering Jews, so he makes Hitler look like an amateur.

MORE COMMENTARY AT: Western Resistance, Clarity & Resolve, Michelle Malkin, Noisy Room,

Posted by: Greg at 09:59 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 3 kb.

A leading Canadian Muslim really puts a fine point on the matter.

“The protests in the Middle East have proven that the cartoonist was right,” said Tarek Fatah, a director of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

“It's falling straight into that trap of being depicted as a violent people and proving the point that, yes, we are.”

But then we already knew that -- at least in regards to a large segment of the Musim fraithful.

Which is not to condemn all Muslims. But when there is the sort of reaction to the Danish cartoons that we have seen, there can be no question that a large chunk of the Muslim population -- including those living in the West -- are decidedly uncivilized.

Offense is one thing. So is voicing outrage and demanding an apology.

A violent response is another.

And until that is recognized by Muhammad's followers, a deferential concern about giving offense is not only pointless, but is actually counterproductive.

(H/T HyScience and Lost Budgie)

Posted by: Greg at 08:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Follow this little piggie to market.

We must not let the followers of this guy win.

The Washington Post presents a good overview of the conflict.

Michelle Malkin points out that some in the American media are so "sensitive" that they won't even show the cartoons --effectively giving in to the Islamo-censors.

OTHER VOICES: Michelle Malkin, HyScience, Noisy Room, Dr. Sanity, Face of Muhammad, MVRWC, Secular Blasphemy, Belmont Club, Down With Absolutes, Common Folk, Small Town Veteran, Capital Region People, Kerfuffles, America...F*ck Yeah!, RightWingFascist, Woody's News, HiWired, aaron, A Tic In The Mind's Eye, Generation Why?, Palmetto Pundit, Magic Statistics, Right Thoughts, Right Side Of The Rainbow, Narcissistic Views

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin is doing yeoman's (yeowoman's?) work documenting the anti-freedom actions of the Islamo-censors.

Doesn't this one say it all?

And she is coordinating a blogburst of the "offensive" cartoons.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 4 kb.