Yeah, heaven forbid (oops -- is that too "fundamentalist" for these MPs?) that Catholic bishops insist that Catholic institutions operate in a Catholic manner.

Roman Catholic bishops are to appear in front of a powerful committee of MPs amid fears that they are pushing a fundamentalist brand of their religion in schools. Bishops have called on parents, teachers and priests to strengthen the role of religion in education. In one case the Bishop of Lancaster, Patrick O'Donoghue, instructed Catholic schools across much of north-west England to stop 'safe-sex' education and place crucifixes in all classrooms.

Crucifixes in the classrooms! Quick -- pass the smelling salts! And the teaching of traditional Catholic sexual morality -- the horror of it all!

Perhaps this comment from one of the MPs is the most telling.

'It seems to me that faith education works all right as long as people are not that serious about their faith.

Yes, we can't have folks who are serious about a religious faith teaching the doctrines of that faith and controlling that faith's institutions. That won't work at all. It might cause people to believe that religious faith -- or at least CHRISTIAN religious faith -- matters.

And yet, oddly enough, militant Islamist organizations are allowed to freely operate in the UK without much restriction at all. I guess that the reason is that the MPs know that neither the "doctrinaire" and "fundamentalist" bishops won't detonate themselves in the face of criticism.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | Comments (175) | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

There is simply no other way to define what they are asking for here.

Lawmakers from the Algerian Islamic political party of al-Nahda have asked the government to intervene to slow down "the activities of Christian missionaries in the country".

Algerian MP Muhammad Hudeibi was quoted as saying this in the local el-Khabar newspaper.

"We want the government to cut down this type of activity because the expansion of evangelisation in Algeria has become an important problem and is not marginal as some think it is," said Hudeibi.

For some years, the local media in Algeria have reported on the activities of a number of missionaries, particularly those from evangelical and Protestant churches, who have succeeded in converting entire Algerian families to Christianity, particularly those who come from the eastern area of Kabilia.

"We condemn the government's silence with regard to this phenomenon," said the Algerian MP.

"We are collecting the signatures of other lawmakers in order to begin a discussion in parliament on this problem," he said.

"All 11 parliamentarians of al-Nahda have been mobilised, but we are convinced that others will also help us."

The Islamic party also asked the Algerian ulema or Islamic scholars and imams to give their opinion on the issue of Christian evangelism.

Actually, the opinion of Muslim scholars or religious leaders on this matter should be irrelevant.

After all, the right to change one's religion is an internationally recognized human right, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As such, banning proselytism or conversion would fundamentally be a violation of the human rights of every individual living in or visiting Algeria. That such human rights violations are daily committed in other Muslim countries is irrelevant -- and if it is argued that Islam forbids such activities, then it must be conceded by those making such a claim that Islam itself is the enemy of human rights.

H/T Gates of Vienna

Posted by: Greg at 12:00 PM | Comments (72) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

Christmas is a time of hope, of expectation. We mark the birth of a child whose tragic fate we know, and yet we exult because of the glorious triumph that grows out of that seeming ignominious death and the possibility that opens for each of us.

And yet, some years it seems that there is much in this world to despair over.

And so I offer you one of my favorite Christmas songs, which reminds us that the victory has already been won for us by our Savior, Jesus Christ.

I Heard The Bells On Christmas Day

I heard the bells on Christmas day
Their old familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet the words repeat
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom
Had rolled along the unbroken song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

Till ringing, singing on its way
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime, a chant sublime
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And in despair I bowed my head
“There is no peace on earth,” I said,
“For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail
With peace on earth, good will to men.”

And in this day when the prophets of faithlessness seek to disparage and deny the truth of the Gospel, I repeat with Henry Wadsworth Longfellow the most stirring words of this composition -- God is not dead, nor doth He sleep!

May each of you find your hearts filled with joy this Christmas, and may you find your spirit renewed with the Easter Promise contained within the Christmas Miracle.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Is It Just Me?, The Midnight Sun, Rosemary's Thoughts, Stix Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Stageleft, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 6 kb.

Bravo to Dinesh D'Souza for making clear the absurdity of those who would expunge Christ from the public square and American culture.

But apply this logic to another holiday and its absurdity becomes manifest. Imagine if the ACLU filed lawsuits nationwide to remove all references to Martin Luther King on Martin Luther King day. The reason is that not everyone agrees that King's legacy was a positive one, and that the main beneficiaries of King's activism have been African Americans and other minorities. Southern segregationists, in particular, feel excluded from King's "beloved community." So in the name of diversity and tolerance all monuments and symbols and references to King should be erased. Instead Martin Luther King day becomes another "happy holiday."

This would be crazy. The answer to the ACLU would go something like this: "We are honoring King because we believe he has changed our civilization and our world vastly for the better. If you don't agree, by all means write a letter to the editor. But it is intolerance bordering on bigotry for institutions to get rid of all references to King simply because some people don't like him or feel excluded by his vision."

Like it or not, the Western Culture of which our nation is a part is in large part rooted in Christianity. Many of our cultural celebrations and practices are influenced by and connected to the Christian faith. Those who seek to wipe them out are not just attacking the faith of the overwhelming majority of Americans, but also the bedrock upon which our society rests.

Such individuals are welcome here. Our nation, our society, are built upon toleration of differing beliefs, even those which are so wrong-headed and intolerant as those of the Christ-erasers. But as in the hypothetical above, their sense of exclusion is not a legitimate basis for the suppression of the heart-felt beliefs of the majority.

Posted by: Greg at 02:03 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm a Christian.

I also believe, quite firmly, in evolution.

And I do not see a contradiction in the two.

Indeed, there are a pair of quotes in today's Michael Gerson column in the Washington Post that quite clearly reflect my point of view on the matter, each from author Leon Kass

The first notes that there is a rough parallel betwen evolutionary theory and the Genesis creation account.

Leon Kass, in his masterful work "The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis," observes, "The biblical account is perfectly compatible with the fact of a slowly evolving cosmos, with life arriving late, beginning in the sea and only later emerging on earth, progressively distinguished into a variety of separated kinds."

Indeed, if one does not read that account with a spirit of wooden literalism, that parallel is quite obvious. That would make the beginning of Genesis an allegory, rather than a history. And to those who object, may point out that if mere human beings are capable of using that literary technique, then so is an omniscient, omnipotent God.

But more important is the Kass quote that closes the column.

"Let us assume that creation is evolution," argues Leon Kass, "and proceeds solely by natural processes. What is responsible for this natural process? . . . Can a dumb process, ruled by strict necessity and chance mutation, having no rhyme or reason, ultimately answer sufficiently for life, for man, for the whole? . . . And when we finally allow ourselves to come face-to-face with the mystery that there is anything at all rather than nothing, can we evolutionists confidently reject the first claim of the Bible -- 'In [the] beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'?"

My argument is that no, that claim cannot be rejected. At the same time, God cannot be scientifically proven. There is no way to place God in a test tube or under a microscope slide, and there is no reagent that can test for his presence or absence. But as has often been pointed out, science and faith can be seen as -- and ought to be seen as -- complementary rather than contradictory. To place them at odds with one another is to present a false dichotomy, for coming to understand the divine miracle of creation AND evolution (which are, dare I say, one and the same) should not necessitate the the rejection of a Creator. Similarly, faith in a Creator God need not result in the rejection of the scientific laws and processes by which creation was carried out and which God gave us the intellect to understand. Indeed, both of those extreme positions fall well outside the boundaries of the Judeo-Christian faith tradition, and must be labeled heretical. Let them be anathema.

Posted by: Greg at 02:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

Like this is a surprise?

Pope Benedict XVI warned Sunday against seeking happiness in drugs or other "artificial paradises" and the self-centered quest for "pleasure at all costs."

Instead, the pope held up Mother Teresa — the Roman Catholic nun who devoted her life to serving the poor in India and elsewhere — as an example.

"Every day, she lived next to misery, human degradation and death," the pope told thousands of faithful gathered in St. Peter's Square. "Yet, she offered the smile of God to everybody."

The pope, speaking during the traditional Sunday noon Angelus prayer, said real happiness cannot be found in cultures "that put individual happiness in the place of God, a mentality that has its emblematic effect in the quest for pleasure at all costs, in the spread of the use of drugs as an escape, a shelter in artificial paradises, which turn out to be completely illusory."

Imagine that -- a Christian leader urging people to avoid self-destructive pleasure and to serve others. Suggesting that people look to the example of the greatest Christian religious figure or our lifetime, and, through her, to a model of Christian service. It isn't a new message -- it is one as old as the Christian faith itself.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

Better yet – instead of an EU ban on crosses, how about an EU ban on Muslims?

A Turkish lawyer is taking legal action against Inter Milan, the Italian football team, for wearing a strip with “Crusader-style” red crosses that he alleges is ”offensive to Muslim sensibilities”.

Baris Kaska, a lawyer in Izmir who specialises in European law, said that he had lodged a complaint in a local court against Inter Milan, which last month played the Istanbul team Fenerbahce in a Champions League match at the San Siro stadium in Milan. The Inter players wore a new strip - a white shirt with a giant red cross on it - marking the club's centenary.

Mr Kaska said he was not only seeking damages but was also appealing to Uefa to annul the match, which Inter won 3-0. “That cross only brings one thing to mind - the symbol of the Templar Knights,” he said. “It made me think immediately of the bloody days of the past. While I was watching the game I felt profound grief in my soul.” Mr Kaska told the Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia that the cross symbolised “Western racist superiority over Islam”.

A couple of thoughts.

1) So your pathetic little Muslim sensibilities have been offended. Deal with it. In the free world, you have to put up with having your sensibilities offended. That is why, for example, I have to tolerate seeing dhimmified media outlets refer to Muhammad as the Prophet and putting “pbuh” after his name. That strikes me as an attempt to put your faith above mine, given that the American media never refers to Jesus as the Savior., despite the insistence of Christians that he truly is.

2) You are so concerned about the “bloody days of the past”? Why don’t you go out and do something about the bloody days of the present, when your co-religionists are waging a terrorist jihad against the civilized world. Heck, why don’t you do something about the oppression of Christians in your own country? Could it be that you want superiority for your false religion and false prophet over Christianity and Christians?

3) Sorry, but it is not racist to believe Christianity to be superior to Islam. It is the result of any amount of consideration of the fruits of those two faiths, and the state of the societies in which those two faiths dominate to see which one is superior.

4) Seeking to overturn the results of the game on the basis of the shirt? Sounds like the Muslim approach to the Middle East Peace Process – make a demand to be given what you cannot win on the ground. Bugger off.

Let's play soccer!

H/T Stop the ACLU, Jawa Report, Snapped Shot, Right Wing Rebel, Atlas Shrugs

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Chuck Adkins, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 5 kb.

But since it is directed at Mormons and (less directly) Evangelicals, that is OK in the eyes of her editors who blissfully ran her column trashing Mitt Romney today. After all, how else can you describe a column which quotes an anti-Mormon polemicist at length as an authority on Romney's religion?

And having then included a direct attack on Romney's religion as the heart of her piece, she concludes with this.

The problem with Mitt is not his religion; it is his overeager policy shape-shifting. He did not give a brave speech, but a pandering one. Disguised as a courageous, Kennedyesque statement of principle, the talk was really just an attempt to compete with the evolution-disdaining, religion-baiting Huckabee and get Baptists to concede that Mormons are Christians.

“J.F.K.’s speech was to reassure Americans that he wasn’t a religious fanatic,” Mr. Krakauer agreed. “Mitt’s was to tell evangelical Christians, ‘I’m a religious fanatic just like you.’”

The backdrop, he said, is “the wickedly fierce competition between Mormons and Southern evangelicals to convert people.”

The world is globalizing, nuclear weapons are proliferating, the Middle East is seething, but Republicans are still arguing the Scopes trial.

Mitt was right when he said that “Americans do not respect believers of convenience.” Now if he would only admit he’s describing himself.

The problem, of course, is that there is nothing in the speech which speaks of religious fanaticism. Indeed, it speaks of common values held by Americans of many faiths,

Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

"They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which
Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

Yeah, damn those religious fanatics. How dare Romney appeal to people who believe in equality, service to their neighbor, and human liberty. Such beliefs are positively unAmerican in the eyes of the likes of her. Never mind that such elements of fanaticism have been at the heart of abolitionism and civil rights.

Of course, the secularist Dowd is quite right -- Mitt is no JFK. Indeed, he took precisely the opposite tack from that former president. Kennedy distanced himself from his Church, making it plain that he really did not take Catholicism seriously. Romney, in a move that Dowd characterizes as fanaticism, refused to temporize or apostasize, and declared his firm adherence to the tenets of his faith, though he refused to allow them to be a matter of political import. And that, in Dowd's eyes, makes Mitt Romney dangerous.

After all, she is one of those who supports a religious test for office, one which disqualifies those who actually believe in anything except for the Gospel of Liberalism.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds and Gateway Pundit provide a little tidbit about Mo Dowd's faulty memory -- She would have been 21 or 22 at the time of the events described in the "childhood memory" portion of her column. Makes you wonder about a tendency for fabrication in her columns -- sort of like Bill Clinton's burning black churches in Arkansas. Paging Jayson Blair!

Posted by: Greg at 02:32 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 565 words, total size 4 kb.

After all, what do you call this?

The daughter of a British imam is living under police protection after receiving death threats from her father for converting to Christianity.

The 31-year-old, whose father is the leader of a mosque in Lancashire, has moved house an astonishing 45 times after relatives pledged to hunt her down and kill her.

The British-born university graduate, who uses the pseudonym Hannah for her own safety, said she renounced the Muslim faith to escape being forced into an arranged marriage when she was 16.

She has been in hiding for more than a decade but called in police only a few months ago after receiving a text message from her brother.

In it, he said he would not be held responsible for his actions if she failed to return to Islam.

When you read the stories of mobs at the door, attempting to break into her homes to murder her for exercising the HUMAN RIGHT to choose her own religion, it is enough to make you shudder. No civilized person can believe that such actions fall within the bounds of acceptable behavior, and no decent person can claim that such conduct by the Religion of Barbarism ought to be accepted in a civilized nation.

And let's clarify exactly where this assault on human dignity comes from.

"I know the Koran says anyone who goes away from Islam should be killed as an apostate, so in some ways my family are following the Koran. They are following Islam to the word."

That's right, it comes from the malignant teachings of Muhammad and the Quran. It would appear that this victim of Islam is prepared to acknowledge certain points that the supporters of PC tolerance are not -- that to be a good and faithful Muslim means to murder those who seek to exercise their human rights, and to respect human rights requires one to be a bad Muslim who rejects some of the teachings of the Quran.

And please be aware -- over one-third of British Muslims support actions just like this one, according to a recent poll. I'd love to have similar polling data for the Muslim population in the United States. I suspect it would be enlightening for the secularists who argue that conservative Christians and neo-conservative Jews are the greatest threats to American freedom.

The answer to such abominable teachings and actions should be obvious to all who love religious freedom.

To those who would argue that such violations of human rights in the name of Islam are justified, we must apply a metaphorical beat-down in the form of outspoken opposition and arguments based upon the natural rights principles our nation's founding documents.

To those who would seek to give safe harbor to such evil practices in the name of Islam through litigation and legislation, we must apply a legal beat-down in the courts and the legislatures of the United States in defense of human rights.

To those who would act out the violence called for in the Quran, we must apply a physical beat-down in defense of the life and liberty of every American -- indeed, of every person in every nation -- to freely pick and peacefully practice the religion of their choosing, free from the violent coercion of religious or legal authorities and from the murderous reprisals of the followers of their former faith.

And note that the above strategy is not a call for members of any particular faith to take action against those who seek to follow the Quran in a literal fashion. It is a call for all people of good will, all believers in religious freedom and human dignity, to act against those who would substitute violence and coercion in religious matters for the liberty of conscience which is fundamental to freedom. Such people of good will are found in every faith community (including Islam), and among those who have no faith at all.

And let me add that this is an American strategy, fully consonant with the notions of religious liberty enshrined in our founding documents and our nation's long heritage. And if there are Muslims who find that they cannot live within such constraints, perhaps it is a sign that there is no place for their interpretation of Islam in this country -- or the civilized world.

H/T New Editor, Cafeteria Is Closed, Wolf Howling, Malkin, Below the Beltway, Sister Toldjah

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Special Weekend!, , third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, Adam's Blog, , Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, , Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Global American Discourse, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:41 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 853 words, total size 9 kb.

I won't be shopping at Target this year -- or for the foreseeable future.

After all, their official policy is religious accommodations for Muslims, but not for Christians.

Debbie Schlussel is on this one for us.

The retail giant employs Muslims and Christians (and those of many other religions). But the former is far more equal than the latter at the home of Isaac Mizrahi cheap chic and Archer Farms foods.

Earlier this year, when Muslim cashiers decided to refuse to ring up pork and pepperoni pizza at the checkout lane, Target allowed this to go on. The retailer insisted that it respect and accommodate the extreme religious beliefs of its Muslim employees despite the cost and hassle to the customer and the retailer. The practice held up lines and required double teams of cashiers to keep up with the Muslims do-and-don't lists of scanning and ringing up items.

But that was then. This is now. And now, Brian Bundy of Swartz Creek, Michigan, is gone from his job at Target. He was fired because, unlike its Muslim employees, Target would not accommodate his Christian religious beliefs. That's even though--unlike the Muslim cashiers--Bundy informed Target of his beliefs before he was hired by Target Corporation.

Bundy is a pharmacist. It is against his religious beliefs to fill prescriptions for the "morning after" pill a/k/a "Plan B," which is used to terminate pregnancy in the 72 hours after unprotected sex. When he was hired by Target, the retailer told him that he could refer those who wanted the drug to another pharmacy.

But since then, Target changed its tune. Instead of accommodating Bundy's religious beliefs like it did with Muslims who won't ring up pig products, Target fired him. Target's rationale: It's bad for business. Customers won't put up with it, and Target will lose money.

Seems to me that there is a clear double standard here. A relatively minor inconvenience for a few customers results in religious discrimination by the retailer, while a much broader disruption involving more employees and more customers is company policy out of sensitivity. Now granted, Brian Bundy and his fellow Christian pharmacists are not nearly as likely to make a vocal fuss -- or threaten/engage in acts of violence -- as the Muslim clerks and their co-religionists are, but that is not sufficient reason under state or federal law for the discriminatory treatment.

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.

I don't have much use for televangelists. On the other hand, I have even less use for political grandstanding. I therefore applaud Creflo Dollar's response to Charles Grassley.

One of six Christian ministries under investigation by a Senate committee is rebuffing inquiries into its spending, challenging the panel's watchdog role over religious groups, The Associated Press has learned.

A lawyer for preacher Creflo Dollar of World Changers Church International in suburban Atlanta has asked Sen. Charles Grassley to either refer the matter to the IRS or get a subpoena, according to a letter from Dollar's attorney obtained Wednesday by the AP.

Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, sent pointed questionnaires in early November to a half-dozen ministries, asking about salaries, perks, travel and oversight. The Iowa Republican set Thursday as the deadline for a response.

All six organizations preach a form of the "prosperity gospel," the belief that God wants his faithful followers to reap material rewards.

Besides Dollar, several other televangelists have signaled concerns about invasions of privacy and violations of religious freedom. Only Joyce Meyer Ministries of Fenton, Mo., has provided the detailed financial and board oversight information sought by Grassley.

Dollar's refusal could lead to a court fight, giving a judge the authority to decide whether the committee is entitled to all the information it requested.

Grassley emphasized the other five still have time. The senator also reiterated that his probe "has nothing to do with church doctrine" and is strictly concerned with making sure the tax-exempt groups are following the law.

I happen to agree with the stance being taken here. If you truly believe something is wrong here, refer the matter to the IRS. If you are looking to change the law, issue subpoena's that will provide confidentiality to those forced to turn over records. But untill you do ojne of those two things, Senator, we are just looking at an attempt to garner a little publicity at the expense of disfavored religious groups.

By the way, Senator, might it not be better to subpoena the resoucres of mosques to see if they are somehow supporting terrorism, rather than concerning yourself about he lavish (and, dare I say it, scandalously unChristian) lifestyles of these televangelists and their heretical "prosperity gospel"? Granted, these ministries are a safer target due to the infinitesimal probability of a terrorist bombing or attempted beheading by their followers, but I think my suggestion would be much more important for the security of the United States.

Posted by: Greg at 11:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

A shameful end to a shameful incident.

The British schoolteacher jailed in Sudan for allowing her 7-year-old pupils to name a class teddy bear Muhammad was pardoned Monday by the Sudanese president and left for England later in the evening.

President Omar al-Bashir made the decision after meeting with two Muslim members of the House of Lords, the upper house of the British Parliament.

The British prime minister, Gordon Brown, said he was “delighted and relieved” at the news and that “common sense has prevailed.”

The teacher, Gillian Gibbons, was sentenced to 15 days in jail last week for insulting Islam and was to be released next Monday. Under Sudanese law, Ms. Gibbons could have received 40 lashes and been jailed for six months. On Friday, hundreds of Sudanese in Khartoum, the capital, protested what they considered a lenient punishment and called for her to be put to death.

British officials had been ratcheting up pressure on SudanÂ’s government to release Ms. Gibbons, 54, saying she had made an innocent mistake. Muhammad is one of the most common names in the Muslim world, but it is also the name of IslamÂ’s holy prophet.

Frankly, I find the whole incident shameful.

That an innocent action with no malicious intent was treated as a crime is shameful.

That crowds of outraged Muslims called for this woman's death is shameful.

That two Muslim peers traveled asked the Sudanese leader for a pardon is shameful -- they should have demanded an unconditional release and exoneration of Ms. Gibbons.

That Ms. Gibbosn accepted the pardon and its implication of wrongdoing is shameful.

That those who insist that non-Muslims conform to actions to Islamic law and sensibilities won again is shameful.

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

Am I the only one who takes offense at this attempt to have it both ways by Richard Cohen?

What could be called "The Huckabee Moment" occurred Sunday morning when ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked the former Arkansas governor, suddenly and ominously the front-runner in Iowa's GOP contest, whether Mitt Romney is a Christian. Mike Huckabee knew precisely what was being asked of him, and he also knew, because he is a preacher, what the right -- not the clever, mind you -- answer should be. But Huckabee merely smiled that wonderful smile of his and punted. This, with apologies to George W. Bush, is the soft demagoguery of low expectations.

Until just recently, the expectations have indeed been low for Huckabee. He is more famous for losing more than 100 pounds than for any towering political accomplishment. But he is an ordained Baptist minister, and Romney is a Mormon -- a member of a church that some conservative Christians consider heretical. Huckabee has presented himself as the un-Mormon.

Pardon me for saying so, but that is the chief difference between the two. On about all the social issues you can name -- abortion, stem cells, gun control -- Huckabee and Romney are in sync. So their religious differences are not about morality. They are about belief -- religious belief, precisely the issue that is not supposed to matter in this country. Huckabee, though, clearly thinks it ought to.

Now hold on here, Richard. You insist that religious belief is not supposed to matter in a political race in this country. And yet you take Huckabee to task for not passing theological judgment upon Mitt Romney and his religious faith. How can those two positions possibly be reconciled? And more to the point, would any answer given by Mike Huckabee have satisfied you. Do you mean to tell me that had Huckabee answered "No, Mitt Romney is not a Christian," you would have sheered him for forthrightly proclaiming his religious belief about the nature of the Mormon faith? If he had said "Yes, Mitt Romney is a Christian," am I expected to believe that you would not be making a big deal about his breaking with Southern Baptist Convention and many other conservative religious groups on the status of the LDS Church, with its unique, distinctive beliefs? In other words, how can you seriously tell us that belief does not matter and then excoriate Huckabee for not formally stating his religious belief on a Sunday morning news show.

Now please understand that i think it is high time that Mitt Romney speaks out about the issue of religious tolerance. I expect that Thursday's speech will be an important one. But in no way can it or should it be a determining factor in the theological debate over the question of whether or not Mormonism is or is not a Christian faith. That gets into an entirely different realm.

But interestingly enough, Cohen's language of religious tolerance is belied by his repeated slams directed at conservative Christians who express their faith in a public manner. You know, the comment about Huckabee's "obdurate and narrow-minded religious beliefs" and the slam about Huckabee's position on evolution. What's more, Cohen dares to pass the judgment that Huckabee is not a good Christian. I suppose we should ask who died and made this Jewish columnist Pope, with the wherewithal to determine the validity of someone's Christian faith.

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 585 words, total size 4 kb.

Muslim complaints about anti-Muslim bias crimes up.

Could it be that CAIR and its fellow travelers are lying?

Not only are anti-Islamic hate crimes way down, but they're a fraction of overall religious hate crimes. The overwhelming majority of such crimes target Jews, something CAIR and other Muslim groups don't seem all that concerned about.

In 2006, a whopping 66% of religiously motivated attacks were on Jews, while just 11% targeted Muslims, even though the Jewish and Muslim populations are similar in size. Catholics and Protestants, who together account for 9% of victims, are subject to almost as much abuse as Muslims in this country.

Last year's anti-Islamic hate crimes totaled 156. While just one hate crime is one too many, that's a 68% drop from 2001.

The FBI report gives lie to CAIR's alarmist narrative of "Islamophobic" lynch mobs marching on mosques across America. In reality, Americans have been remarkably, and admirably, tolerant and respectful of Muslims and their institutions since 9/11.

It's plain that CAIR, which claims to be the "Muslim NAACP," has been hyping tensions.

What is the real story? Consider this chart based upon FBI statistics.

What do you see there? Certainly not a rising tide of crimes against Muslims because of their religion. Instead you see the truly minimal number of incidents directed against Muslims. And while any crime based upon the victim's religion is wrong, the numbers don't lie -- but it is clear that CAIR does.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

So much for one character in a children's book.

A BRITISH children's author who called one of his characters Mohammed the Mole to promote multiculturalism has renamed him Morgan so as not to offend Muslims.

Kes Gray said the case of British teacher Gillian Gibbons, who has been jailed in Sudan for allowing her class of primary school children to name a teddy bear Mohammed, had prompted him to postpone a reprint of his book, Who's Poorly Too, and change the name.

“I had no idea at all of the sensitivities of the name Mohammed until seeing this case in Sudan,” Gray told The Sunday Times.

“As soon as I saw the news I thought, 'Oh gosh, I've got a mole called Mohammed - this is not good'.”

I know whose name won't be changing.

And he's now available at CafePress!

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

When the Gnostic Gospel of Judas was published with great fanfare, it was trumpeted as showing Judas as a good guy whose role was a blessed one. But was that true?

So what does the Gospel of Judas really say? It says that Judas is a specific demon called the “Thirteenth.” In certain Gnostic traditions, this is the given name of the king of demons — an entity known as Ialdabaoth who lives in the 13th realm above the earth. Judas is his human alter ego, his undercover agent in the world. These Gnostics equated Ialdabaoth with the Hebrew Yahweh, whom they saw as a jealous and wrathful deity and an opponent of the supreme God whom Jesus came to earth to reveal.

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Judas was a harsh critic of mainstream Christianity and its rituals. Because Judas is a demon working for Ialdabaoth, the author believed, when Judas sacrifices Jesus he does so to the demons, not to the supreme God. This mocks mainstream ChristiansÂ’ belief in the atoning value of JesusÂ’ death and in the effectiveness of the Eucharist.

So what we have here is, as I pointed out at the time of the original publication, is a document by a heretical sect that was properly rejected by the early Church. That modern scholars have willfully mistranslated it and overlooked the fact that it is both anti-Semitic and anti-Christian (the Jewish Yahweh is an evil demon, while the crucifixion had no value and the Christian Eucharist is meaningless) is indicative of some other agenda than illumination of history. Whether that agenda was to make a quick buck, to spur a healing of Jewish-Christian relations, or to undermine Christianity itself, both the original Gnostic work and the subsequent translation by National Geographic are clearly fraudulent and deserve rejection by people of good will everywhere.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Adeline and Hazel, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Special Weekend!, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Global American Discourse, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 04:40 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 6 kb.

They are strict separationists when it comes to even a hint of Christian principle making it into the American legal system -- but they seem to like Islamic law in Nigeria.

Just last year, the morality police roamed these streets in dusky blue uniforms and black berets, brandishing cudgels at prayer shirkers and dragging fornicators into Islamic courts to face sentences like death by public stoning.

But these days, the fearsome police officers, known as the Hisbah, are little more than glorified crossing guards. They have largely been confined to their barracks and assigned anodyne tasks like directing traffic and helping fans to their seats at soccer games.

The Islamic revolution that seemed so destined to transform northern Nigeria in recent years appears to have come and gone — or at least gone in a direction few here would have expected.

When Muslim-dominated states like Kano adopted Islamic law after the fall of military rule in 1999, radical clerics from the Arabian peninsula arrived in droves to preach a draconian brand of fundamentalism, and newly empowered religious judges handed down tough punishments like amputation for theft. Kano became a center of anti-American sentiment in one of the most reliably pro-American countries in Africa.

But since then, much of the furor has died down, and the practice of Islamic law, or Shariah, which had gone on for centuries in the private sphere before becoming enshrined in public law, has settled into a distinctively Nigerian compromise between the dictates of faith and the chaotic realities of modern life in an impoverished, developing nation.

“Shariah needs to be practical,” said Bala Abdullahi, a civil servant here. “We are a developing country, so there is a kind of moderation between the ideas of the West and traditional Islamic values. We try to weigh it so there is no contradiction.”

The tone of the article is, quite frankly, fawning. The segregation of women and limits on women's rights are presented as liberating. And the atrocities committed by Muslims against Christians are presented as minor misunderstandings that have been replaced by (a somewhat dhimified) tolerance. But the situation is great in the eyes of al-NY ibn-Times -- after all, the Christians aren't in charge.

Posted by: Greg at 05:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 2 kb.