You would think she would comment -- after all, the event is taking place in her district.

Instead, she chose to avoid answering the question.

CNSNews.com:"I'd like to get local for a second and talk about what's going on in San Francisco. Your spokesman told the Bay Area Reporter that the Folsom Street Fair advertisement mocking the last supper would not harm Christianity. I'm wondering if you find the advertisement personally offensive."

"And as a follow up, the city's Grants for the Arts program, funded by the city's hotel tax, subsidizes the fair. Do you think that it's fair to tax everyone who visits San Francisco and stays in a hotel to support the fair?"

Pelosi: "Well that's not really a local question. That's a constitutional question. That's a religious question. That's as big a global question as you can ask. I'm a big believer in First Amendment and therefore, as I said in my statement, I do not believe that Christianity has been harmed by the Folsom Street Fair advertising."

Notice what she avoids answering.

1) Are you offended by the poster?

2) Should tax dollars subsidize the event and the poster?

I guess Pelosi realizes that the gay bondage crowd is more likely to vote for her than Christians are -- but that she and her party need to court Christians and capture some of their votes to win in 2008.

But the obvious answers are:

1) No, I'm not offended by the mocking of Christianity and a sacred event in the life of Christ. Gay sado-masochism is a beautiful thing between two leather clad consenting adults.

2) Yes, taxpayers, especially Christian taxpayers, should have to subsidize everything that offends them and insults them, because they vote for Republicans. On the other hand, gay sado-masochists are a key part of the Democrat coalition of the victimized, and so they are entitled to everything they can get from the government.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for highlighting the Democrat family values.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, Stix Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, , third world county, Allie is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Right Voices, Church and State, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 5 kb.

The artificial limits imposed upon religious literature in prison libraries has been lifted following a public outcry over the absurd limits and nebulous standards behind the list.

Facing pressure from religious groups, civil libertarians and members of Congress, the federal Bureau of Prisons has decided to return religious materials that had been purged from prison chapel libraries because they were not on the bureauÂ’s lists of approved resources.

The bureau had said it was prompted to remove the materials after a 2004 Department of Justice report mentioned that religious books that incite violence could infiltrate chapel libraries.

After the details of the removal became widely known this month, Republican lawmakers, liberal Christians and evangelical talk shows all criticized the government for creating a list of acceptable religious books.

The bureau has not abandoned the idea of creating such lists, Judi Simon Garrett, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail message. But rather than packing away everything while those lists were compiled, the religious materials will remain on the shelves, Ms. Garrett explained.

In an e-mail message Wednesday, the bureau said: “In response to concerns expressed by members of several religious communities, the Bureau of Prisons has decided to alter its planned course of action with respect to the Chapel Library Project.

“The bureau will begin immediately to return to chapel libraries materials that were removed in June 2007, with the exception of any publications that have been found to be inappropriate, such as material that could be radicalizing or incite violence. The review of all materials in chapel libraries will be completed by the end of January 2008.”

It is nice to see a little sunshine and public outrage bringing about a policy shift that makes sense. Get rid of the problem materials after a review of what is in the libraries, and in the future don't add anything until it has been reviewed. Packing away unobjectionable material based upon an arbitrarily defined limit of 150 items was the wrong way to go -- and the new policy is substantially better.

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

This seems to be the sort of thing he and his entourage might do.

Police flooded a Brooklyn precinct with extra cops yesterday following the discovery of swastikas and other anti-Semitic messages scrawled on two synagogues and several other buildings and cars.
Twenty extra detectives were added to investigate the incident, which sent shivers through Brooklyn Heights.
In addition to the swastikas found late Monday, the culprits placed on cars fliers that read, "All Jews Die. Israel Land of Jews Die," above a swastika and "SS."
The rabbi at a synagogue violated with a swastika laid the blame on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying his visit inspires anti-Semites.
"I think [his] visit here spurred hate-mongers to come out of the closet," said Rabbi Aaron Raskin of Congregation B'nai Avraham.
"I have numerous congregants whose parents are survivors of the Holocaust. It brings up bad memories. [A swastika is] not just a symbol - it represents the deaths of 6 million people."

I think the good rabbi is correct – Mahmoud the Mad and his Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying rhetoric can bring the nut-jobs out of the woodwork to express the sort of bile spewed by this “world leader”.

Posted by: Greg at 10:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

When images seen as disrespectful of Muhammad are published or displayed, there are riots, death threats, and demands for government apologies. Artists have to go into hiding, and receive police protection.

When similar artwork is done of Christ, the response is much more muted.

A SWEDISH artist unveiled a sculpture depicting Christ as a well-endowed dog, saying he wanted to stimulate debate about religion and freedom of expression in the wake of a row over cartoons of the prophet Mohammed.

The artwork showed Jesus as a dog with a bloodstained head under a crown of thorns and an “enormous sexual organ”, according to Swedish press agency TT.

However, within hours of the sculpture being installed on a roundabout in Skaanes Fagerhult, a town in the south of Sweden, it disappeared.

“I want religion to stop taking society and the vulnerable for idiots,” the 59-year-old artist, Stig Ramsing, told the online version of Helsingborgs Dagblad newspaper.

In Nordic countries the display of outlandish sculptures of dogs on roundabouts is a familiar art form which has become common in the past decade.

“It is my turn to follow (artist) Lars Vilks and provoke a sensible discussion about religion,” Ramsing said.

Vilks is the Swedish artist whose cartoon of the prophet Mohammed with a dog's body published in the Swedish press triggered controversy both in Sweden and other countries.

Sweden saw protests against Vilks's cartoon, while Egypt, Iran and Pakistan made diplomatic protests about the image. Death threats were also made against both Vilks and the editor of the newspaper which published the satirical cartoon.

Will Sweden apologize to the world's Christians? Will the pope put a price on Ramsing's head? How many Swedish embassies and consulates will rioting Christians burn? I think the answer to these questions is obvious -- Christians will do none of these.

What does that tell you about the nature of the two religions? Which one is really a religion of peace?

Posted by: Greg at 09:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

And as the son of a convert from Islam, he ought to know what ex-Muslims face at the hands of the members of their former religion.

One of the Church of England's most senior bishops is warning that people will die unless Muslim leaders in Britain speak out in defence of the right to change faith.

Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, whose father converted from Islam to Christianity in Pakistan, says he is looking to Muslim leaders in Britain to 'uphold basic civil liberties, including the right for people to believe what they wish to believe and to even change their beliefs if they wish to do so'.

Some Islamic texts brand Muslims who convert to other faiths as 'apostates' and call for them to be punished. Seven of the world's 57 Islamic states - including Iran - impose the death penalty for conversion.

Now Ali, who some see as a potential Archbishop of Canterbury, has told Channel 4's Dispatches programme of his fears about the safety of the estimated 3,000 Muslims who have converted to other faiths in Britain.

'It is very common in the world today, including in this country, for people who have changed their faith, particularly from being Muslim to being Christian, to be ostracised, to lose their job, for their marriages to be dissolved, for children to be taken away,' Ali said. 'And this is why some leadership is necessary from Muslim leaders themselves to say that this is not what Islam teaches.'

The problem is that this is what Islam teaches -- and while only 7 islamic countries impose that penalty under their laws, in many others they prohibit conversion and impose OTHER penalties upon those who leave Islam. Indeed, they tend not to punish the murders of such converts, either.

And when you consider this statistic from a recent poll, it strikes me that there is a much bigger problem at hand. A sizable group of British Muslims want to see the death penalty imposed upon those who convert away from Islam.

A poll of more than 1,000 British Muslims, conducted by the Policy Exchange think-tank this year, found that 36 per cent of Muslims aged between 16 and 24 believe those who convert to another faith should be punished by death.

Wouldn't you love to know the numbers here in the United States? Like any polling company would have the 'nads to ask that question.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, The Populist, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, , Conservative Cat, Jo's Cafe, Stageleft, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, and The Pink Flamingo, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 480 words, total size 4 kb.

If they really want to rebrand themselves as the Religion of Peace, they ought to come up with something other than "Submit or Die!" as their slogan.

The purported head of al-Qaeda in Iraq has offered a reward for the murder of a Swedish cartoonist over his drawing depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

The $100,000 (£49,310) reward would be raised by 50% if Lars Vilks was "slaughtered like a lamb" said the audio message aired on the internet.

The speaker, said to be Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, threatened a new offensive during the holy month of Ramadan.

Last month's cartoon showed Prophet Muhammad's head on a dog's body.

Several Muslim countries protested.

Imagine, that someone might think that Islam is anything other than a peaceful religion!

But you know what -- maybe these folks have the right idea. Rather than turning the other cheek, perhaps slaying those who mock one's religion is the way to go.

I'll start by offering a reward of one hundred BILLION DOLLARS for the head of Christopher Hitchens on a silver platter -- and up it by 50% if it has an apple clenched between its teeth.

Oh, and $5.00 for every dead Muslim, since they say that Jesus isn't the Son of God but is instead a prophet inferior to Mo-doggie himself.

NOTE TO LOCAL DEMOCRATS: I'm being facetious.

And in the mean time, let's do our best piss off the jihadis (and their supporters) who insist upon the dhimmitude of the West.

In the mean time, might I urge you to sign this petition supporting the artist, Lars Vilks.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Big Dog's Weblog, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Nuke's News & Views, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, , Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, The Yankee Sailor, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 5 kb.

I was raised Catholic. During the first year of my marriage, though, I realized that I was finding myself drawn in a somewhat different spiritual direction, and left the Church. At no time did I expect the force of law to be applied against me – nor did I need to live in fear that I would be murdered for following my conscience.

Unfortunately, that is not the case for these folks.

A group of young Muslim apostates launches a campaign today, the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America, to make it easier to renounce Islam.

The provocative move reflects a growing rift between traditionalists and a younger generation raised on a diet of Dutch tolerance.

The Committee for Ex-Muslims promises to campaign for freedom of religion but has already upset the Islamic and political Establishments for stirring tensions among the million-strong Muslim community in the Netherlands.

Ehsan Jami, the committee’s founder, who rejected Islam after the attack on the twin towers in 2001, has become the most talked-about public figure in the Netherlands. He has been forced into hiding after a series of death threats and a recent attack.

The threats are taken seriously after the murder in 2002 of Pim Fortuyn, an antiimmigration politician, and in 2004 of Theo Van Gogh, an antiIslam film-maker.

Speaking to The Times at a secret location before the committee’s launch today, the Labour Party councillor said that the movement would declare war on radical Islam. Similar organisations campaigning for reform of the religion have sprung up across Europe and representatives from Britain and Germany will join the launch in The Hague today.

“Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up,” Mr Jami said. “In Islam you are born Muslim. You do not even choose to be Muslim. We want that to change, so that people are free to choose who they want to be and what they want to believe in.”

Indeed, that threat of death is quite real, given the murders that have taken place in the Netherlands. The courageous Ayaan Hirsi Ali was forced to flee the country because of the threats against her. And around the world, individuals like Abdul Rahman and Lina Joy have faced death and imprisonment for exercising their right to follow the call of Christ, while forced conversions have become a hallmark of jihadi terrorists.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is clear on that such oppression is a violation of a fundamental right of every human being.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Notice, please, that there is no exception for Islam – EVERYONE had the right to change one’s religion or beliefs.

So unless we are to conclude that Muslims – including those born and raised as Muslims without their consent – are not human, then it is obligatory for every government to not only permit individual Muslims to freely change their religion, but also protect such ex-Muslims from violent reprisal by their former co-religionists.

Of course, given the violations of the rest of the rights in Article 18 in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries, I somehow doubt that the governments of those countries will suddenly embrace the right to renounce Islam and become an apostate. It is up to the rest of the world to apply pressure until that right is universally accepted.

Unfortunately, this does not help us to deal with the greater philosophical question – how much tolerance should we grant to a religion that not only rejects tolerance, but does so in a murderous fashion?

H/T Malkin

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Inside the Northwest Territory, The Populist, Shadowscope, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Planck's Constant, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 731 words, total size 7 kb.

I was raised Catholic. During the first year of my marriage, though, I realized that I was finding myself drawn in a somewhat different spiritual direction, and left the Church. At no time did I expect the force of law to be applied against me – nor did I need to live in fear that I would be murdered for following my conscience.

Unfortunately, that is not the case for these folks.

A group of young Muslim apostates launches a campaign today, the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America, to make it easier to renounce Islam.

The provocative move reflects a growing rift between traditionalists and a younger generation raised on a diet of Dutch tolerance.

The Committee for Ex-Muslims promises to campaign for freedom of religion but has already upset the Islamic and political Establishments for stirring tensions among the million-strong Muslim community in the Netherlands.

Ehsan Jami, the committeeÂ’s founder, who rejected Islam after the attack on the twin towers in 2001, has become the most talked-about public figure in the Netherlands. He has been forced into hiding after a series of death threats and a recent attack.

The threats are taken seriously after the murder in 2002 of Pim Fortuyn, an antiimmigration politician, and in 2004 of Theo Van Gogh, an antiIslam film-maker.

Speaking to The Times at a secret location before the committeeÂ’s launch today, the Labour Party councillor said that the movement would declare war on radical Islam. Similar organisations campaigning for reform of the religion have sprung up across Europe and representatives from Britain and Germany will join the launch in The Hague today.

“Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up,” Mr Jami said. “In Islam you are born Muslim. You do not even choose to be Muslim. We want that to change, so that people are free to choose who they want to be and what they want to believe in.”

Indeed, that threat of death is quite real, given the murders that have taken place in the Netherlands. The courageous Ayaan Hirsi Ali was forced to flee the country because of the threats against her. And around the world, individuals like Abdul Rahman and Lina Joy have faced death and imprisonment for exercising their right to follow the call of Christ, while forced conversions have become a hallmark of jihadi terrorists.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is clear on that such oppression is a violation of a fundamental right of every human being.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Notice, please, that there is no exception for Islam – EVERYONE had the right to change one’s religion or beliefs.

So unless we are to conclude that Muslims – including those born and raised as Muslims without their consent – are not human, then it is obligatory for every government to not only permit individual Muslims to freely change their religion, but also protect such ex-Muslims from violent reprisal by their former co-religionists.

Of course, given the violations of the rest of the rights in Article 18 in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries, I somehow doubt that the governments of those countries will suddenly embrace the right to renounce Islam and become an apostate. It is up to the rest of the world to apply pressure until that right is universally accepted.

Unfortunately, this does not help us to deal with the greater philosophical question – how much tolerance should we grant to a religion that not only rejects tolerance, but does so in a murderous fashion?

H/T Malkin

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Inside the Northwest Territory, The Populist, Shadowscope, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Planck's Constant, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 736 words, total size 7 kb.

I agree that extremist materials need to be kept out of prison libraries, but this just goes too far.

Behind the walls of federal prisons nationwide, chaplains have been quietly carrying out a systematic purge of religious books and materials that were once available to prisoners in chapel libraries.

The chaplains were directed by the Bureau of Prisons to clear the shelves of any books, tapes, CDs and videos that are not on a list of approved resources. In some prisons, the chaplains have recently dismantled libraries that had thousands of texts collected over decades, bought by the prisons, or donated by churches and religious groups.

I understand that there needs to be screening, and I acknowledge that libraries can't accommodate everything. However, consider what the approved list includes -- and does not include.

The Bureau of Prisons said it relied on experts to produce lists of up to 150 book titles and 150 multimedia resources for each of 20 religions or religious categories — everything from Bahaism to Yoruba. The lists will be expanded in October, and there will be occasional updates, Ms. Billingsley said. Prayer books and other worship materials are not affected by this process.

The lists are broad, but reveal eccentricities and omissions. There are nine titles by C. S. Lewis, for example, and none from the theologians Reinhold Niebuhr, Karl Barth and Cardinal Avery Dulles, and the influential pastor Robert H. Schuller.

Mainstream theologians and popular pastors have been excluded. How absurd! It appears as if intellectual laziness is the criteria for inclusion of materials -- I won't say theological bias is at work, other than a bias against weightier works.

And, of course, the problem that is being dealt with has never particularly been one coming from Christian and Jewish works. The hatred and extremism has been imported by "The Religion Of Peace" that attacked us six years ago tomorrow -- but actually dealing with the foul propaganda that advocates hatred and extremism would be seen as an example of bias, so everyone's religious material needs to be restricted lest the ACLU and CAIR file suit.

Posted by: Greg at 09:47 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess it is time to show some solidarity with those whose free speech is under assault.

A Swedish Muslim group on Tuesday said it plans to sue a local newspaper for publishing a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad with a dog's body. The Nerikes Allehanda newspaper in Orebro printed the cartoon made by artist Lars Vilks in an August 19 editorial that criticized Swedish art galleries for not displaying Vilks' art.

Mahmoud Aldebe, chairman of the Swedish Muslim Federation, said the group would sue the newspaper for inciting hatred against ethnic groups. "It ridicules our religion. This is discriminating and insulting... they want to see just how far they are able to go by pushing the boundaries of press freedom," he said.

Actually, Mamoud, I think you and your fellow Muslims done a fine job of inciting hatred against yourselves and your faith. After all, between acts of terrorism and attempts to restrict the rights of non-Muslims, you and your co-religionists have managed to lower the esteem in which I once held Islam.

Besides -- since the Qu'ran contains insulting statements denying the divinity of Christ and ridiculing the beliefs of Christians, I certainly could argue that it constitutes an incitement of hate against ethnic groups, and that it is therefore discriminating and insulting towards OUR faith. Do you really want to trade your religion's holy book for a few pathetic drawings of your faith's (false) prophet?

H/T Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 12:04 PM | Comments (101) | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

Today's WaPo has an excellent piece on the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe today.

Hatred of Jews has reached new heights in Europe and many points south and east of the old continent. Last year I chaired a blue-ribbon committee of British parliamentarians, including former ministers and a party leader, that examined the problem of anti-Semitism in Britain. None of us are Jewish or active in the unending debates on the Israeli-Palestinian question.

Our report showed a pattern of fear among a small number of British citizens -- there are around 300,000 Jews in Britain, of whom about a third are observant -- that is not acceptable in a modern democracy. Synagogues attacked. Jewish schoolboys jostled on public transportation. Rabbis punched and knifed. British Jews feeling compelled to raise millions to provide private security for their weddings and community events. On campuses, militant anti-Jewish students fueled by Islamist or far-left hate seeking to prevent Jewish students from expressing their opinions.

Frankly, I think it would be interesting to see a study similar to McShane's carried out in this country today. There has been a steady rise in the anti-Semitic rhetoric on the Left today, as best shown on websites like Kos and DU. On college campuses around the country, anti-Semitic rhetoric is a staple of anti-Israel protest -- but opposition to the brutal face of Islam shown daily by the jihadis is treated as religious intolerance and Americans are urged to "abandon their stereotypes". The Israel lobby is painted as anti-American by some -- while unindicted co-conspirators in terrorism related cases are treated as respected voices of moderation.

Indeed, not only is it time to examine the anti-Semitism running rampant in America, it is also time to closely examine the philo-Islamism that threatens to undermine our struggle against the forces of jihadi terror.

Posted by: Greg at 09:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.