I think that Time gets it right here, and others may be jumping the gun in celebrating the release of Christian convert Abdul Rahman from jail.

The dismissal of a case against an Afghan citizen for converting from Islam to Christianity has saved Afghanistan's government a damaging showdown with its primary patron, the United States. Under mounting pressure from Washington and other Western backers, President Hamid Karzai is reported to have intervened personally to have the case of Abdul Rahman, 41, who converted to Christianity 16 years ago, dismissed. But the grounds on which the case was thrown out — insufficient evidence and other technicalities, as well as questions over the sanity of the accused — do not change the basic problem that had put both Karzai and his Western backers in a tight spot.

Abdul Rahman and others like him still face the possibility of being charged with apostasy for converting out of Islam, an offense that carries a penalty of death unless they renounce their new faith. While Afghanistan's constitution embraces international human rights conventions that guarantee freedom of worship, it also codifies the role of Islamic Sharia law — under which Abdul Rahman was charged. And even while Washington and NATO governments whose troops help provide security for Karzai's government had urged Kabul to drop the charges, public opinion on the streets of Afghanistan — recently inflamed by episodes such as the furor over Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad — showed strong support for legal action against the convert. But Karzai, whose government's security position remains as precarious as ever, was in no position to resist Washington's demands. As President Bush put it, "We have got influence in Afghanistan, and we are going to use it to remind them that there are universal values."

But it was not in recognition of "universal values" that Abdul Rahman was released. Instead, authorities cited insufficient evidence, insinuations about his mental state and even questions raised by the authorities over his citizenship. The legal basis for charging someone for converting from Islam to Christianity has not, thus far, been altered — the political confict that from having U.S. troops trying to protect a government that can't guarantee the right of its citizens to choose the same faith as the President of the United States has simply been kicked down the road. Not only that, the Abdul Rahman case has alerted the Evangelical Christian base of the Republican Party to the need to press the Bush Administration on the issue, and at the same time mobilized the conservative Muslim clerical establishment and the powerful Islamist politicians in Afghanistan's coalition government to defend their Sharia code. Not surprisingly, there is speculation that Abdul Rahman may leave Afghanistan once he's out of jail.

Now ignoring all the biased, loaded language in this report, what it comes down to is this -- Rahman is to be freed based not upon a human rights violation, not upon the principle that every person has the right to choose his or her own religion free of state ceoercion, but based upon technical questions about the evidence and insinuations about his sanity. This is therefore NOT a victory for human rights or religious freedom -- it is a strategic retreat on the part of the Afghan government.

Even the ruling in this case makes it clear that Rahman could be back in prison the day after tomorrow.

An official closely involved with the case told The Associated Press that it had been returned to the prosecutors for more investigation, but that in the meantime, Rahman would be released.

"The court dismissed today the case against Abdul Rahman for a lack of information and a lot of legal gaps in the case," the official said Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

"The decision about his release will be taken possibly tomorrow," the official added. "They don't have to keep him in jail while the attorney general is looking into the case."

So see -- there is still every chance of Abdul Rahman being prosecuted. Or what we might see is forbearance in this case, but the eventual execution of some other convert.

We will hear over the next few days about howinternational pressure saved Abdul Rahman, and that this is a victory for human rights. Such rhetoric will be especially common from internatioanl leaders who spoke against the possibility that Abdul Rahman would be martyred for his faith. But I think the point that many folks missed, especially world leaders (including our own President), is that it didn't take an execution for there to be a violation of human rights.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper called Afghan President Hamid Karzai to discuss this case.

"Upon the conclusion of the call, (Karzai) assured me that respect for human and religious rights will be fully upheld in this case," said Harper in a statement.

With all due respect to both men, human and religious rights have already been violated by the trial itself, never mind the potential death sentence.

I'll take it a step further -- the arrest itself constituted a violation of human rights.The bringing of charges constituted a violation of human rights. After all, the human right in question is not Abdul Rahman's right to life -- it is his right to choose and practice his religion freely, without government coercion or interference. I therefore remain dissatisfied with the outcome here, and fearful that the response to this bit of good news will obscure the fact that arrest, trial, and execution are the potential faith for our brothers and sisters in Afghanistan who accept the REAL Good News.

But for this small victory I give thanks to God.

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, LGF, The Anchoress, MacRanger, CoffeeSpy, Captain's Quarters, Below the Beltway, A Blog for All, Blogotional, Political Pit Bull , StrataSphere, Stop the ACLU, Ordinary Everyday Christian, John Galt Line, Most Certainly Not, Protein Wisdom, Mudville Gazzette, Jawa Report, Wizbang, Six Meat Buffet, Demonrats, Cao’s Blog, Dread Pirate Bluto, Conservative Thinking, Unpartisan, Volokh, Jihad Watch, DelawareWatch, Blogs for Bush

OPEN TRACKBACKED TO: Samantha Burns, Conservative Cat, MacBro's Place, Gospel Fiction, Comedian Jenee, NIF, Don Surber, Right Wing Nation, Colbert Report, Third World Country, Bacon Bits, Stuck On Stupid, Liberal Wrong Wing, Adam's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Real Ugly American, Blue Star Chronicles

Posted by: Greg at 07:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1077 words, total size 11 kb.

Ted Byfield of the Calgary Sun asks some pertinent questions of Canadian Muslims in light of the Abdul Rahman case. I believe that, with a little bit of tweaking, they are equally pertinent for Muslims in America.

Certain questions arise here. Is it true that Islamic law makes the conversion of a Muslim to Christianity, or any other religion, a capital offence?

Is it true the Qur'an requires his execution?

Is it true, as has been frequently reported, that it is illegal to preach the Christian gospel in a country under Islamic law?

Is this also punishable by death?

Is it true the goal of the Islamic faith is to bring all the countries of the world under Islamic law?

In short, is one objective of the Muslim faith purely political?

Is it the aim of Canadian Muslims to bring such a "perfect constitution" to Canada?

And if they succeeded, and Canada became an Islamic country, would the Christians be allowed to continue preaching the Gospel, including to Muslims?

If all these things are true, then would it not follow that Muslims are opposed to freedom of religion?

Obviously, if you cannot preach a religion, then this is a central prohibition against its practice.

How therefore can a Muslim contend that he supports the Charter of Rights and Freedom?

In the western world, Muslims are certainly free to preach and practise Islam. They are not arrested.

If a Christian converts to their faith, the Christian is not put in jail and brought to trial.

Christians would certainly pray for his soul, but I know of nothing in the Christian Bible that requires his execution.

Do Muslims perhaps regard this reaction as a weakness in Christianity?

How do Muslims reconcile these Qura'nic requirements with their portrayal of Islam as a religion devoted to peace, goodwill and mutual understanding?

Or, in the view of their faith, is such benevolence confined to relations among Muslims, not to their dealings with "infidels."

And if this proscription exists, ought they not to include it in their portrayal of their faith.

The rule would be: "Love your neighbour as yourself, provided he is a Muslim."

Harsh questions, to be sure -- but questions that need to be asked in light of recent goings-on in the Muslim world. Whether we are talking about the arrest of Christian converts, the execution of homosexuals, the uproar over the Muhammad cartoons, or the refusal to allow American troops in the Middle East to openly practice their faith out of "sensitivity" to Islam, there appears to be a pattern of barbaric intolerance at work. Is this part and parcel of Islam? If it is, why won't Muslims admit to this.

And more to the point, how do we safeguard civil liberties and human rights in the face of a growing movement that seems to seek to strip all others of their rights?

Posted by: Greg at 05:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 487 words, total size 3 kb.

I wrote earlier this week about the Board of Supervisors in Sodom-By-The-Bay seeking to cause a schism in the Catholic Church because of their belief that there was insufficient separation of church and church. I now learn that they are also passing resolutions condemning evangelical youth rallies, and that members of the board are leading rallies against religious gatherings in the city.

More than 25,000 evangelical Christian youth landed Friday in San Francisco for a two-day rally at AT&T Park against "the virtue terrorism" of popular culture, and they were greeted by an official city condemnation and a clutch of protesters who said their event amounted to a "fascist mega-pep rally."

"Battle Cry for a Generation" is led by a 44-year-old Concord native, Ron Luce, who wants "God's instruction book" to guide young people away from the corrupting influence of popular culture.

Luce, whose Teen Mania organization is based in Texas, kicked off a three-city "reverse rebellion" tour Friday night intended to counter a popular culture that he says glamorizes violence and sex. The $55 advance tickets for two days of musical performances and speeches were sold out, but walk-up admission was available for $199.

After stops in Detroit and Philadelphia in the next few weeks, Luce wants to unleash a "blitz" of youth pastors into the communities to do everything from work with the homeless to find new ways to bring others to Christ. He challenged youth leaders to double the size of their groups in the next year.

And then he plans to return to San Francisco next year to chart their progress.

So what we have here is, pure and simple, First Amendment protected activity – the free exercise of religion and the exercise of freedom of speech and assembly. Such things are pretty frightening to the leaders of government in San Francisco, especially when we are talking about Christians gathering to support the historical teachings of Christianity.

That's bad news to Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who told counterprotesters at City Hall on Friday that while such fundamentalists may be small in number, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."

Get that – Christians who oppose sexual immorality, violence in media, and who engage in evangelism and work with the homeless are “obnoxious. . . disgusting, and . . . should get out of San Francisco.” So let’s make that clear – Christians who believe in Christianity are not welcome in a city named for the gentlest of Christian saints. We have it from the mouth of a member of the California State Assembly.

But back to the city government.

Earlier this week, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."

Gee – sounds like the rantings of the Islamofascists who wanted the heads of the Danish cartoonists. Dissent from the religio-political orthodoxy of the government of San Francisco is “an act of provocation.” Gee – I thought that it was an act of human freedom, and that (to quote the Left) “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” I guess that isn’t the case if you are a Christian.

And letÂ’s not let this Supervisor off the hook.

"Even if it is done by a Barnum & Bailey crowd with a tent and some snake oil, I think we need to pay attention to it," said Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who authored the condemnation resolution. "We should not fall asleep at the wheel."

Sorry, Tom, the problem is not that these folks are suckers with snake-oil – it is your constituents who are d*ck-suckers getting oiled-up in the bathhouses and spreading STDs though unprotected anonymous sex. The problem is those in the homosexual and "progressive" communities who are are intolerant of any disagreement with their agendas, civil rights and civil liberties be damned. Address those issues, Mr. Supervisor, not the religious beliefs of those who dare to disagree with you. Maybe you need to pay a little more attention to the real problems run amok in your city, rather than acting as a Grand Inquisitor condemning the heresies of those who do not share your views. I hate to be so rude and graphic, sir, but you seem to be so hung up on prescribing orthodoxy that you are willing to jettison American freedoms in the name of sexual license.

And let me remind the government of San Francisco of this little quote from Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, over sixty years ago.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

You folks have been out of line in these recent religion resolutions, for you are attempting to do precisely what Justice Jackson notes is forbidden -- you are attempting to establish what is orthodox and to prevent (or at least interfere with) the expression of views which contradict that orthodoxy. Such actions are, however, completely above your pay grade (and forbidden to every public official). Justice Jackson further noted this about individuals like you.

Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

This is what we saw in Nazi Germany, and in the old Soviet Union.

It is what we see today in Red China, Cuba, and North Korea.

This is what we see in Afghanistan today, as a Christian sits in a prison cell facing possible execution for daring to reject Islam, which is the religious orthodoxy in that country. I've suggested that we need to use military force to topple that government and ensure religious freedom.

Your actions lead me to believe we are not far from the day when we will have to use troops to topple the city government in San Francisco, lest the legitimate rights of American citizens be suppressed and their lived threatened by the enactments of the Board of Supervisors. After all, these resolutions have placed the government of the city on the same totalitarian trajectory.

MORE AT: Ordinary Everyday Christian, Right on the Left Coast, News Alert

OPEN TRACKBACKED TO: Samantha Burns, Conservative Cat, MacBro's Place, Gospel Fiction, Comedian Jenee, NIF, Don Surber, Right Wing Nation, Colbert Report, Third World Country, Bacon Bits, Stuck On Stupid, Liberal Wrong Wing, Adam's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Real Ugly American, Blue Star Chronicles

Posted by: Greg at 09:27 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1131 words, total size 9 kb.

And in the course of that service performed deeds of heroism so compelling that Desmond Doss was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Not bad for a pacifist who refused to carry a weapon out of a profound respect for the word of God and human life.

Desmond T. Doss, Sr., the only conscientious objector to win the Congressional Medal of Honor during World War II, has died. He was 87 years old.

Mr. Doss never liked being called a conscientious objector. He preferred the term conscientious cooperator. Raised a Seventh-day Adventist, Mr. Doss did not believe in using a gun or killing because of the sixth commandment which states, “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13). Doss was a patriot, however, and believed in serving his country.

During World War II, instead of accepting a deferment, Mr. Doss voluntarily joined the Army as a conscientious objector. Assigned to the 307th Infantry Division as a company medic he was harassed and ridiculed for his beliefs, yet he served with distinction and ultimately received the Congressional Medal of Honor on Oct. 12, 1945 for his fearless acts of bravery.

According to his Medal of Honor citation, time after time, Mr. DossÂ’ fellow soldiers witnessed how unafraid he was for his own safety. He was always willing to go after a wounded fellow, no matter how great the danger. On one occasion in Okinawa, he refused to take cover from enemy fire as he rescued approximately 75 wounded soldiers, carrying them one-by-one and lowering them over the edge of the 400-foot Maeda Escarpment. He did not stop until he had brought everyone to safety nearly 12 hours later.

When Mr. Doss received the Medal of Honor from President Truman, the President told him, “I’m proud of you, you really deserve this. I consider this a greater honor than being President.”

Mr. Doss’ exemplary devotion to God and his country has received nationwide attention. On July 4, 2004, a statue of Mr. Doss was placed in the National Museum of Patriotism in Atlanta, along with statues of Dr. Martin Luther King, President Jimmy Carter, and retired Marine Corps General Gray Davis, also a Medal of Honor recipient. Also in 2004, a feature-length documentary called “The Conscientious Objector,” telling Doss’ story of faith, heroism, and bravery was released. A feature movie describing Doss’ story is also being planned.

Mr. Doss died Thursday morning in Piedmont, Ala. He is survived by his wife, Frances; his son, Desmond T. Doss, Jr., and his brother, Harold Doss.

Visitation will be held from 6 to 8:30 p.m. Friday, March 31, at Heritage Funeral Home, located at 3239 Battlefield Parkway, Fort Oglethorpe.

A memorial service will be held Saturday, April 1, at 3 p.m. at the Collegedale Seventh-day Adventist Church located at 4829 College Drive East in Collegedale.

Burial will take place on Monday, April 3, at 11 a.m. at the Chattanooga National Cemetery.

In lieu of flowers, the Doss family requests that donations be sent to the Desmond Doss Museum Fund at the Georgia-Cumberland Conference office (P.O. Box 12000 Calhoun, Ga., 30703).

This man, ladies and gentlemen, was a true hero. We look at today's crop of "peace activists" and find a motley crew of ne'er-do-wells and whiners who have little respect for this country or its soldiers. Contrast the actions of Desmond Doss with the refusal of the recently rescued Christian Peacemaker team hostages to offer so much as a word of gratitude for the actions of military personnel who rescued them from terrorists who kidnapped them and murdered one of their number.

I have no doubt that Mr. Doss is this day in Paradise, in the company of the One True God.

ADDITIONAL TRIBUTES: MFVOV, Missing Link, Chaotic Synaptic Activity, Mudville Gazette, The Daily Brief, Hit and Run, Eric Berlin, Slobokan, Riehl World, Chatter, Two Malcontents, Fred Schoeneman, Blackfive

UPDATE: The Washington Post has this obituary, which is very good. It notes that Doss was not the only conscientious objector to receive thh Congressional Medal of Honor, merely the first. The other, Cpl. Thomas W. Bennett, a medical aidman who died while serving during the Vietnam War, also received the nation's highest military honor.

I urge you to click below to read the extended entry, where I have reproduced the full text of the citation that accompanied his Medal. You will be awe-struck by the degree of bravery exhibited by this man over the course of several days. Such Christ-like devotion to his fellow man in the face of his own possible death -- including while seriously wounded himself -- brought tears to my eyes. more...

Posted by: Greg at 02:51 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 1338 words, total size 11 kb.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been in contact with the Afghan government to express the official concern of the United States government over the arrest and possible trial/execution of Christian convert Abdul Rahman.

In an unusual move, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned President Hamid Karzai on Thursday seeking what she called a "satisfactory outcome" of the case of Abdul Rahman. The 41-year-old former medical aid worker faces the death penalty under Afghanistan's Islamic laws for becoming a Christian.

* * *

Rice told reporters in Washington on Thursday the case was "a very deeply concerning development" and she had "raised it in the strongest possible terms" with Karzai. "There is no more fundamental issue for the United States than freedom of religion and religious conscience," she said. "This country was founded on that basis, and it is at the heart of democracy."

I'd love to know what "strongest possible terms" means when applied to a country we recently liberated and which we are currently providing with military assistance and lots of foreign aid cash. Regardless, this is better than the anemic performance by State Department officials earlier in the week. But unfortunately, this call did not include a demand to drop all charges and relase Mr. Rahman, whose only "crime" is following Jesus Christ instead of the false prophet Muhammad, in contravention of the laws of the Religion of Barbarism.

Rice spoke to reporters following her unusual direct appeal to a foreign leader.

"We look forward, hopefully, to a resolution of this in the very near future," Rice said, without elaborating.

Although she asked for what her spokesman called a "favorable resolution," Rice evidently did not demand specifically that the trial be halted and the defendant released.

"This is clearly an Afghan decision," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. "They are a sovereign country."

Nor does it appear that there is any inclination todrop the charges on the part of the Afghan government.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters she had received assurances from Karzai in a telephone call that Rahman would not be sentenced to death.

"I have the impression that he (Karzai) has a firm willingness" to abide by the human rights requirements, Merkel said going into pre-European Union summit talks. "I hope we will be able to resolve this."

So unless they ,make the unacceptable determination that Christianity is a mental illness (which is no different thant he position of their former occupiers, the Soviet Union), there is no prospect for stopping the trial.

Part of the problem, of course, are those who lead the Religion of Barbarism in Afghanistan.

Senior Muslim clerics demanded Thursday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces."

* * *

His trial has fired passions in this conservative Muslim nation and highlighted a conflict of values between Afghanistan and its Western backers.

"Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001.

Notice -- this is the MODERATE MUSLIM LEADER who is saying that Abdul Rahman must die for accepting the Truth of Christianity ofver the falsehood of Islam. It is the individual who was seen as not being Muslim enough by the extremist Taliban who insists death is the only proper penalty for accepting Jesus Christ as the Son of God instead of the blasphemies against Christ found in the Koran. Can we really believe those who call islam a religion of peace and tolerance if such an individual is leading the lynch mob in the event that international human rights standards win out over the murderous practices espoused by Muhammad himself?

After all, leaders from Kabul's largest mosques are instigating the murder of Abdul Rahman.

"He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian," said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque.

"The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed."

Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, agreed. "The government is playing games. The people will not be fooled."

"Cut off his head!" he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside Herati Mosque. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left."

He said the only way for Rahman to survive would be for him to go into exile.

But Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite places of worship in Kabul, said Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country.

"If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too," he said. "We must set an example. ... He must be hanged."

The clerics said they were angry with the United States and other countries for pushing for Rahman's freedom.

"We are a small country and we welcome the help the outside world is giving us. But please don't interfere in this issue," Nasri said. "We are Muslims and these are our beliefs. This is much more important to us than all the aid the world has given us."

The United States must act to stop this act of barbarism -- and to prevent future ones.

Islam Delenda Est

MORE AT Below the Beltway, Deborah, Michelle Malkin, California Conservative, Jawa Report, Donkey Stomp, Ed Driscoll, Wizbang, Pink Flamingo, Magic Statistics, Tech in Black, Stingray, A Blog for All, Say Anything

Posted by: Greg at 06:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 978 words, total size 7 kb.

This takes the cake. And I wonder about the reason given.

Bosses at a Stockholm hospital have asked a nurse called Jesus to change his name, after concerns that it might cause confusion among patients.

According to Jesus, an auxiliary nurse at Huddinge hospital, his superiors were worried that patients told "Jesus will be coming soon ," might get the wrong idea.

"If they thought that Jesus was coming they might believe that they were already dead," the nurse told The Local.

Jesus, who will now use his middle name Manuel, said he didn't have a problem with the change.

"I understand why they wanted me to use my middle name," he said.

But, he added, "my name never usually causes me problems."

Does anyone suspect that there might be an ulterior motive – such as concern about offending the Religion of Barbarism.

Posted by: Greg at 12:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

I am a Christian.

I reject the teachings of Wicca as false.

But I support the efforts of Wiccans to be treated in a manner equal to that of Christians and other religious believers. Situations like this should not happen.

Nevada National Guard Sgt. Patrick Stewart gave his life for his country when the Chinook helicopter he was in was shot down in Afghanistan in September.

But those wishing to honor Stewart, who should have his name on the memorial wall at the Northern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Fernley, would have a difficult time doing so.

The space reserved for Stewart is vacant. Stewart was a follower of the Wiccan religion, which is not recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Stewart's widow, Roberta, said she would wait until her family's religion — and its five-pointed star enclosed in a circle, with one point facing skyward — is recognized for use on memorials before having Stewart's plaque installed.

"It's completely blank," Roberta Stewart said, pointing to her husband's place on the memorial.

She said she had no idea the pentacle could not be used on her husband's memorial plaque until she spoke with the agency after his death.

"It's discrimination," she said. "They are discriminating against our religion."
"I had no idea that they would [refuse] our veterans this right that they go to fight for," she said. "What religion we are doesn't matter. It's like denying who my husband is."

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and its National Cemetery Administration prohibit graphics on government-furnished headstones or markers other than those they have approved as "emblems of belief." More than 30 such emblems are allowed on gravestones and markers in veterans cemeteries, from the Christian cross to the Buddhist wheel of righteousness. A symbol exists for atheists, too.

Roberta Stewart said she had decided to make the issue public because many Wiccans serving in the armed forces might want the symbol included on a headstone or memorial marker.

I therefore call on the Department of Defense to quickly remedy this situation so the beliefs of Wiccan servicemen and women may be properly honored in veterans’ cemeteries. It is the right thing to do – and consistent with the sacrifice made by Sgt. Patrick Stewart, who died an American hero.

Posted by: Greg at 01:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 2 kb.

It seems that the Afghan government learned something from their Soviet oppressors – it is easie to label those who demand their human rights as mentally ill than it is to allow unfettered freedom.

An Afghan man facing a possible death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity may be mentally unfit to stand trial, a state prosecutor said Wednesday.

Abdul Rahman, 41, has been charged with rejecting Islam, a crime under this country's Islamic laws. His trial started last week and he confessed to becoming a Christian 16 years ago. If convicted, he could be executed.

But prosecutor Sarinwal Zamari said questions have been raised about his mental fitness.

"We think he could be mad. He is not a normal person. He doesn't talk like a normal person," he told The Associated Press.

Moayuddin Baluch, a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai, said Rahman would undergo a psychological examination.

"Doctors must examine him," he said. "If he is mentally unfit, definitely Islam has no claim to punish him. He must be forgiven. The case must be dropped."

It was not immediately clear when he would be examined or when the trial would resume. Authorities have barred attempts by the AP to see Rahman and he is not believed to have a lawyer.

A Western diplomat in Kabul and a human rights advocate — both of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter — said the government was desperately searching for a way to drop the case because of the reaction it has caused.

So declaring Christianity to be a mental illness is the way out? I don’t think so – though I am beginning to think that anyone who believes that Islam and human rights are compatible must be nuts.

Time to use the remaining US troops in Afghanistan to impose a secular government and constitution on Afghanistan, just as we did with Japan in 1945. Do we have a latter-day MacArthur to do the job?

UPDATE: It appears that the Afghan government is digging in on this matter.

"We in Afghanistan have the prosecutor who observes the law and the court that executes it. Whatever the court orders will be executed as the court is independent," said Mahaiuddin Baluch, a religious affairs adviser to President Hamid Karzai.

The case has raised alarm overseas and the United States and three other NATO allies with troops in Afghanistan on Tuesday urged respect for religious freedom. German Chancellor Angela Merkel added her voice to those of Western leaders expressing concern.

In response, Afghan Economy Minister Amin Farhang criticized the "heated and emotional reactions of German politicians" and said proposals there to withdraw German troops in protest amounted to blackmail against Karzai's government.
"We don't interfere in Germany's internal affairs or in running court cases," he told the Neue Osnabruecker Zeitung.

The case is sensitive for Karzai, who depends on foreign troops to battle Taliban and al Qaeda militants and foreign aid to support the economy. But he also has to consider the views of conservative proponents of Islamic law.

Asked about the international outcry, Baluch said: "Everybody has the right to express their view."

Mr. Bush – be prepared to use American forces to not only rescue Mr. Rahman, but to bring down the Karzai regime if it allows this trial to begin. American blood was spilled to liberate Afghanistan from the backwards laws of the Religion of Barbarism, not to reinforce sharia.

UPDATE 2: President Bush speaks – at last.

"We expect them to honor the universal principle of freedom," Bush said during a visit to Wheeling to talk about the war on terrorism.
"I'm troubled when I hear -- deeply troubled -- when I hear the fact that a person who has converted away from Islam may be held to account. That's not the universal application of the values that I talked about. I look forward to working with the government of that country to make sure that people are protected in their capacity to worship," Bush said.

I hope his words to the Afghans were even firmer.

MORE AT: Blogs for Bush, Michelle Malkin (taking the lead on the issue), Captain's Quarters, Church and State, Below the Beltway, Ordinary Everyday Christian, Conservative Political Rants, Macmind

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 725 words, total size 6 kb.

Concerned that the Catholic Church has too much influence on the Catholic Church, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has demanded that the Catholic Church disregard the teachings and doctrine of the Catholic Church, and condemned the Catholic Church for attempting to impose those teachings and doctrines upon the Catholic Church. The Board also encouraged schism within the Church, urging the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the ecclesiastical authority of the Pope and Curia.

San Francisco elected officials, who have tangled with the Catholic Church before, issued a blistering statement Tuesday that calls on the Vatican to overturn its edict that children waiting to be adopted should not be placed with gays and lesbians.

The Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a nonbinding resolution that takes aim at a statement issued two weeks ago by Cardinal-elect William Levada, the former archbishop for San Francisco who now serves as second-in-command at the Vatican. Levada said Catholic agencies "should not place children for adoption in homosexual households.''

The San Francissco Board of Supervisors wasted little time chiming in, and challenged local church officials to defy the Vatican.

"It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great city's existing and established customs and traditions, such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need,'' the resolution stated.

On Monday, Maurice Healy, spokesman for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, told The Chronicle that adoptions into gay and lesbian households "are not in sync with church teaching, and we've committed ourselves to being in sync with church teaching.''

In other words, the city government in Sodom-by-the-Bay has gone on record condemning the Catholic Church for upholding two millennia of Christian moral teaching, and demanded that the Church change its teachings and policies to suit the government of San Francisco. Would someone care to explain to me the constitutional theory that allows for such a resolution? How can such a legislative enactment be valid under the First Amendment?

What is more shocking is that the resolution hearkens back to the rhetoric of anti-Catholic nativism from the 19th century. The reference to the Vatican as a foreign country contains in it an implicit challenge to the patriotism and loyalty of American Catholics, and was common in the writings and speeches of anti-Catholic groups such as the American Protective Association, Ku Klux Klan, Protestants and Others United for the Separation of Church and State (now known as Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) and the aptly-named Know-Nothing Party. The Board of Supervisors will be known and remembered by the company in which it has placed itself by this infamous action.

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Liberties had this to say:

“In a non-binding resolution, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors lashed out at the Catholic Church because it disagrees with the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality. The board, which has long shown its affinity for the radical gay agenda, has now demonstrated that it has nothing but contempt for the First Amendment provisions on religious liberty and the establishment of religion. If they had it their way, the government would dictate the teachings of the Catholic Church.

“Because the Catholic Church supports the right of children to be raised by fathers and mothers, and not by various other combinations, the Board of Supervisors calls the Church’s teachings on adoption ‘hateful,’ ‘discriminatory,’ ‘insulting’ and ‘callous,’ adding that it ‘shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance.’ The group also said, ‘It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with…this city’s existing and established customs and traditions….’

“According to this logic, any religious entity that faithfully follows the tenets of its faith risks being condemned by San Francisco officials if the Board of Supervisors disagrees with its contents. The real meddlers, obviously, are government agents who seek to smash the principle of separation of church and state by seeking to inject themselves into the internal affairs of a world religion.
“The new San Francisco Archbishop, George Niederauer, has his hands full with a related matter: Catholic Charities, which has been told to stop gay adoptions, refuses to cooperate. Brian Cahill, the executive director, pledges no policy changes, and Glenn Motola, the CYO director of programs and services, is a gay adoptive father. These men worked for the former archbishop, William Levada, who is now a Cardinal-elect serving in Rome in the same post formerly held by Pope Benedict XVI.”

Well said.

RELATED ARTICLES AT: GOPBloggers, Mirror of Justice, Mere Comments, MarriageDebate.com, Voice from Eden

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 795 words, total size 6 kb.

How is it that CAIR, a group that will screech out its opposition to even the most mild criticism of Islam and proclaims that faith to be tolerant and civilized, can remain silent in the face of the prospect of the judicial murder of a convert from Islam to Christianity? Could it be that all the protestations that Islam is compatible with human freedom are nothing but disinformation designed to obscure the true nature of that faith?

What does the Council on American-Islamic Relations have to say about the trial of an Afghan Muslim who may get the death penalty for converting to Christianity? Nothing so far, noted a conservative, pro-family group.

"Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations so far has been silent," the Family Research Council said in an email message on Tuesday.

"Hooper is usually quick to decry any anti-Muslim slight. By not speaking out against this outrageous action, CAIR is dealing with the issue," said FRC President Tony Perkins.

CAIR, in an email message of its own on Tuesday, did not mention the case of Abdul Rahman, who converted to Christianity 16 years ago. The judge hearing Rahman's case was quoted as saying that Rahman could face the death penalty if he refused to return to Islam.

Some of CAIR's leaders, along with other Muslims, met on Tuesday with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes and top officials of the National Security Council. But the meetings focused on outreach efforts to the Muslim world and "how to address growing levels of Islamophobia in the West," CAIR said.

CAIR recently launched a "Not in the Name of Islam" campaign, which seeks to distance Muslims from terrorism and "correct misperceptions of Islam."

I’ll tell you how to address the growing contempt for Islam (not fear of Islam – Islamophobia) in the West – get your fellow Muslims to act like civilized human beings, including the showing of respect for fundamental human rights like freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Get “good Muslims” to start speaking out against human rights abusive, and counter things like this.

"I am a female medical student. Converting out of Islam is forbidden"

"In our law, a person who forsakes the religion should be killed and there is no freedom in this regard."

"To my secular Muslim brothers who are expressing their sympathy towards this man: these are the teachings of Islam, no negotiations in them." (H/T Big Pharaoh via Jawa Report)

Come on, CAIR – either your religion is one that allows for freedom and human rights, or it does not. Speak out and let the world know which it is – or don’t speak out, and implicitly concede which it is.

UPDATE -- Michelle Malkin provides this new link from the folks at CAIR -- and they appear to have done the right thing.

“Islamic scholars say the original rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual's choice of religion. Islam advocates both freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, a position supported by verses in the Quran, Islam's revealed text, such as:

1) ‘If it had been the will of your Lord that all the people of the world should be believers, all the people of the earth would have believed! Would you then compel mankind against their will to believe?’ (10:99)
2) ‘(O Prophet) proclaim: 'This is the Truth from your Lord. Now let him who will, believe in it, and him who will, deny it.'’ (18:29)
3) ‘If they turn away from thee (O Muhammad) they should know that We have not sent you to be their keeper. Your only duty is to convey My message.’ (42:4
4) ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion.’ (2:256)

“Religious decisions should be matters of personal choice, not a cause for state intervention. Faith imposed by force is not true belief, but coercion. Islam has no need to compel belief in its divine truth. As the Quran states: ‘Truth stands out clear from error. Therefore, whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks.’ (2:256)

“We urge the government of Afghanistan to order the immediate release of Mr. Abdul Rahman.”

Before issuing its statement, CAIR consulted with members of the Fiqh Council of North America, an association of Islamic legal scholars that interprets Muslim religious law.

I'm pleased to see this statement.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 770 words, total size 5 kb.

Would that we could get rid of every newspaper editor and publisher who refused to run the most newsworthy cartoons of the 21st century, and everyu politician who condemned the publication of those images of Islam's false prophet. This Swedish Censor is a good start.

Sweden's foreign minister on Tuesday stepped down because of her role in the row over the Prophet Mohammad cartoons.

Social Democrat Laila Freivalds had to admit she knew that her ministry shut down a right-wing Web site that published Mohammad cartoons, according to the Stockholm bureau of the German daily Handelsblatt.

Freivalds on Tuesday said she could no longer do "serious foreign policy," and handed in her resignation.

The Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet had reported earlier that a high-ranking foreign ministry official pressured the Web site's operators to shut down the page. Freivalds had initially claimed she knew nothing of the operation but later had to admit she had been informed.

A government official in a democratic society should have shut down the censorship effort, not the website. I can only hope that the next step is the firing of every government employee who was involved in this unconscionable violation of human rights. After all, we in the West do understand the concept of human rights, even if the Religion of Barbarism does not.

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

And it was the governments of Italy and Germany that did so.

Italy has joined with Germany in protesting a death threat reportedly hanging over an Afghan who became a Christian in Germany and is now charged under Afghanistan's religious laws .
The sharia laws, which rule many Muslim countries, forbid conversion to other religions on pain of death .

Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini on Tuesday said Italy would raise the case of Abdul Rahman with the Afghan ambassador in Rome, European Union diplomatic representatives in Afghanistan and EU human rights bodies .

Fini said he would voice to the ambassador "the thorough disapproval" of the Italian government if there was a "possibility" of Rahman being sentenced to death. Italy is the de facto EU diplomatic chief in Afghanistan because Austria, which holds the EU's rotating presidency, does not have a mission there .

Italy has some 2,000 troops in the 10,000-strong NATO-led International Security and Assistance force (ISAF), which began peacekeeping operations in and near Kabul a year after a US-led coalition drove out the Islamic fundamentalist Taliban regime in 2002 .

Rome held ISAF's six-month rotating command until last month. It is leading the reconstruction of the Afghan judicial system and has also contributed to other reconstruction projects such as roads, hospitals and schools .

Germany said Tuesday it would appeal directly to Afghan President Hamid Karzai and "do everything in its power" to save the life of Rahman, who returned home from Germany when the Taliban was overthrown.

Unfortunately, the Rahman matter was not addressed by the President at today's press conference.

And the only comment from the State Department was a weak one.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:54 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1278 words, total size 9 kb.

1 It's kinda scary for Italy and Germany to ally with one another regardless of the cause....

Just an off-the-cuff thought

Posted by: beth at Sun Mar 26 16:31:49 2006 (X6tm3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Michelle Malkin shows us this poster, courtesy of the United Nations.

The poster was thought-provoking.

Applying the Left's diversity hemenuetic, I am left asking a difficult
question:

Is the Lego racist for refusing to adopt the majority culture by
conforming to the puzzle, or is the puzzle an oppressor guilty of racism,
ethnocentrism, and cultural imperialism for refusing to accept the
cultural and lifestyle diversity of the minority Lego?

Enquiring minds want to know!

In the mean time, God bless Denmark, and to hell with those who would give into the followers of Islam's false prophet!

MORE AT: Euphoric Reality, Slapstick Politics, GZ Expat, Right Voices, Blogmeister, USA, Solomonia, Mean Mr. Mustard, Jesse Richardson, Vital Perspective, Secular Blasphemy, In The Bullpen, Liberty Just In Case

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 2 kb.

We put this crew in power -- we can take them out.

An Afghan man who recently admitted he converted to Christianity faces the death penalty under the country's strict Islamic legal system. The trial is a critical test of Afghanistan's new constitution and democratic government.

The case is attracting widespread attention in Afghanistan, where local media are closely monitoring the landmark proceedings.

Abdul Rahman, 40, was arrested last month, accused of converting to Christianity. Under Afghanistan's new constitution, minority religious rights are protected but Muslims are still subject to strict Islamic laws. And so, officially, Muslim-born Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and not for practicing Christianity.

Appearing in court earlier this week Rahman insisted he should not be considered an infidel, but admitted he is a Christian. He says he still believes in the almighty Allah, but cannot say for sure who God really is. "I am," he says, "a Christian and I believe in Jesus Christ."

Rahman reportedly converted more than 16 years ago after spending time working in Germany. Officials say his family, who remain observant Muslims, turned him over to the authorities. On Thursday the prosecution told the court Rahman has rejected numerous offers to embrace Islam. Prosecuting attorney Abdul Wasi told the judge that the punishment should fit the crime.

He says Rahman is a traitor to Islam and is like a cancer inside Afghanistan. Under Islamic law and under the Afghan constitution, he says, the defendant should be executed. The court has ordered a delay in the proceedings to give Rahman time to hire an attorney. Under Afghan law, once a verdict is given, the case can be appealed twice to higher courts.

These are the folks we put in power doing this -- and our troops are still supporting them. The President must pressure the government of Afghanistan to drop this prosecution -- and this law -- and if the Afghans fail to do so, then we must act to impose a secular government that respects human rights. We'v done it once, maybe this time we can do it successfully. Also, where is the outcry from human rights activists who want rights for terrorists? Don't peaceful Christians have human rights?

H/T Jawa Report>, Michelle Malkin, Below the Beltway, Latino Issues, Church & State)

MORE AT: Blogs for Bush, Michelle Malkin (taking the lead on the issue), Captain's Quarters, Church and State, Below the Beltway, Ordinary Everyday Christian, Conservative Political Rants, Macmind

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 4 kb.

His position, when you come right down to it, is a reasonable and legitimate one for someone to hold.

The Rev. Franklin Graham, who outraged Muslims in 2001 when he said that Islam "is a very evil and wicked religion," told an interviewer for Wednesday's edition of ABC News "Nightline" that he hasn't changed his mind about the faith.

Asked by ABC correspondent John Donvan whether Muslim groups had succeeded in altering his outlook about Islam, Graham said "No."

"Do they want to indoctrinate me? Yes. I know about Islam. I don't need an education from Islam," he said. "If people think Islam is such a wonderful religion, just go to Saudi Arabia and make it your home. Just live there. If you think Islam is such a wonderful religion, I mean, go and live under the Taliban somewhere. I mean, you're free to do that."

Read the Koran. Read the Hadith. Look at the history and the present of Islam. It is hard to argue with the assessment of this Christian leader -- especially when one considers that the claims made about Christ by Islam can only be described as blasphemous.

Let's delve a little deeper into why he makes the claim.

The younger Graham angered Muslims following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when he told NBC News: "We're not attacking Islam but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion."

Islam is a religion that claims the Old and New Testaments are wrong and corrupted (despite the fact that evidence shows remarkable accuracy in the preservation of OT texts over the last couple of millenia, andthe evidence of the textual fidelity of the New Testament is very strong. Jesus is relegated to the status of prophet, and thee Resurrection is labeled as false. Sounds like a different God to me.

And Graham makes a crucial distinction, one I affirm with him.

In a subsequent Wall Street Journal piece, Graham wrote that he doesn't think Muslim believers "are evil people because of their faith. But I decry the evil that has been done in the name of Islam, or any other faith — including Christianity."

Good people -- evil faith.

Posted by: Greg at 05:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 407 words, total size 2 kb.

Yesterday I posted about a church in Canada being sued for telling a couple over a year in advance that a homosexual could not be a part of the wedding party. It seems that my comments reflect the prophetic prediction of Mary Ann Glendon (as quoted in a different context by Jeff Jacoby).

"As much as one may wish to live and let live," Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote in 2004, during the same-sex marriage debate in Massachusetts, "the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination.... Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles."

When liberal hypocrites speak of “freedom” and “diversity”, what they really mean is that you are have no choice but to believe, speak, and act precisely as they demand.

The Doors Of Perception has commentary on this issue as well.

Posted by: Greg at 12:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

Advocates for homosexual “rights” continue their efforts to force Christianity back into the catacombs in their efforts to normalize and sanction immoral behavior. This case is just the latest move in the direction of forcing churches to perform homosexual “marriages”

The Observer, the local paper for Sarnia/Lambton Ontario, reports that the pastor of a local church is in hot legal water for his defence of Christian principles.

Tamara Bourgeois, 29, and Jerry Condie, 34, were to marry in June 2007 at Sovereign Grace Community Church and have told the Observer that they are considering legal action against Pastor Glenn Tomlinson when he refused to allow an active homosexual to be part of the wedding party.

Tomlinson said he believes that allowing an unrepentant homosexual in the ceremony is tantamount to sanctioning homosexuality. "I'm OK with a gay person attending in the congregation. We are all sinners," Tomlinson told The Observer. "But the key to me is that a gay man is standing up in an official capacity. If we allowed that, we'd be sanctioning something in the actual ceremony."

Sovereign Grace church bills itself on its website as a church that "believes, teaches, and rejoices in the historic doctrines of Christianity."

Allowing a gay man to stand up for the couple would send the "wrong message, "Tomlinson said. "As a Baptist church, we believe that the scripture is God's word, without error."

Bourgeois was apparently expecting the pastor of this conservative congregation to be in full agreement with the liberal doctrines of "tolerance" for sin. Bourgeois reacted with indignant astonishment when Tomlinson said yes when she asked him if having a "gay man" in the wedding party would be a problem.

"He said it is a problem. I couldn't believe it. I can't be part of a church that feels this way."

"Shouldn't the church be about tolerance?" she asked.

The "tolerance" dogma of liberalism, however, only goes in one direction. Having found another church more to her theological taste - one in agreement with her support of the homosexual political agenda - Bourgeois is vowing to use the courts to persecute Sovereign Grace church for their adherence to Christian doctrine.

I plan on taking this all the way. If I have the means for a civil suit, I'll sue for discrimination," she said, "Who attends at a wedding should have no bearing on the wedding itself. It's not like we're asking him to marry us and we're gay."

Where will it end? Will the human right of religious freedom be utterly extinguished in order to accommodate all nature of immoral activity? While I don’t necessarily agree with Pastor Tomlinson on his decision, I cannot do other than support his right to make that decision as being in line with the theological beliefs and practices of his congregation. For there to be any sanction against a church or a pastor over decisions regarding who may participate in a religious ceremony and how they may participate is outrageous – but is perfectly in keeping with the Canadian trend towards placing the right to practice sodomy above the right to practice one’s religion.

And for those who argue that such Canadian cases are irrelevant to the American experience, please realize that the tendency to American courts to apply foreign law and precedents makes this matter of intense interest to American citizens. In addition the “gay” “rights” movement (not to mention other liberals) often points to Canadian laws and social practices as models for America to follow. In addition, there is the moral obligation to speak out against the persecution of religious believers who peacefully follow their religion, regardless of what political boundaries are involved.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 632 words, total size 4 kb.

And more importantly, why is it controversial?

Muslims are "crazed fanatics" motivated by "demonic power" whose goal is "world domination," religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said.

Robertson's comments during Monday's "700 Club" program followed a segment about radical Muslims in Europe.

"These people are crazed fanatics and I want to say it now; I believe it's motivated by demonic power, it is satanic and it's time we recognize what we're dealing with," watchdog group Americans United for Separation of Church and State quoted Robertson as saying.

"The goal of Islam ... is world domination," Robertson said.

I don't see anything wrong with the statement -- the position that Islam is a Satanic counterfeit of the Judeo-Christian faith is one that dates back centuries. If you doubt that, read Dante, and note the fate reserved for Muhammad. If Robertson believes this and wishes to advocate it, then there is nothing wrong with this -- in fact, I am willing to go so far as to say that I agree with him regarding the origin and nature of Islam.

And as far as the issue of world domination, I only have to point to the history of Islam from the time of its founding to make the case that it is an agressive faith that spreads itself sing violence. The Qu'ran makes it clear that Islam accepts no equality with other religious beliefs, and that those who follow such beliefs are to be subordinatate to Muslims and the dictates of Islam. If you want to see that in action, consider the response to the Muhammad cartoons from Denmark.

Is that an attack on your average Muslim? No, not any more than a critical dismissal fo Scientology as a fraud perpetrated by a hack science fiction writer is a personal attack upon Tom Cruise, John Travolta or other followers of that ersatz religion.

Has Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (which began as the virulently anti-Catholic "Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State") taken upon itself the role of defending Islam and censuring (and censoring) the religious expression of Christians who do not follow its PC line on religious speech?

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.

Rusty from Jawa Report offers this suggestion for dealing with the violence associated coming from the Muslim world.

Can Hookers Save Islam?

If the Germans believe that mobilizing an army of hookers will help reduce the normal amounts of violence associated with the World Cup, wouldn't logic dictate that a few thousand prostitutes are what is needed to stop the annual Haj stampede? And if that is the case, maybe we should unleash Amsterdam's Red Light district on the Sunni Triangle?

It could work........

I wonder -- is this just another way of saying "F*ck Islam"?

Posted by: Greg at 01:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.

There really isn't much of a story here. A group of protesters decided they wanted to enter private property to conduct their protests, despite being told they were not welcome. More to the point, they are making a specific attempt to undermine the religious teachings and practice of the religious group that owns the property. End of story.

More than 20 gay rights activists were arrested on trespassing charges Friday when they stepped onto the campus of Liberty University, the school founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Many of the activists were part of Soulforce, a Lynchburg-based group on its first stop of a nationwide "Equality Ride" tour to promote gay rights at the nation's conservative Christian universities and military academies. Most of those arrested were members of the tour, but the group also included supporters from other colleges and the community.

Invoking the memory of the civil rights movement, Soulforce member Jacob Reitan said: "We want to come to the school today to say, 'learn from history.'"

"We have a right to be here, because this school teaches that being gay is being sick and sinful," said Reitan, co-director of Equality Ride. "We have a right to question and to show how we are children of God."

You have the right to do so right until the moment you illegally set foot on the grounds of Liberty University to make your protest. At that point, you are nothing more than a common criminal.

Some 60 people, including 35 members of the Equality Ride bus tour, gathered for the late morning rally on a sidewalk outside the school's main entrance. A music group played guitars and sang 1960s peace songs.

The 20 activists who actually entered the campus were arrested immediately.

Several Liberty students spoke to the Soulforce members. But the group didn't always find support. Comparing homosexuals to drug users and adulterers, Liberty senior Tray Faulkner said the university disapproves of any alternative lifestyle. "I know you guys don't think it's a sin," he said. "We do."

Campus police charged all of those arrested with trespassing, and two faced additional charges of inciting trespassing. They were restrained in plastic handcuffs before being taken to a local magistrate.

All were released without bail later in the day, pending a court appearance April 3. The maximum penalty for the misdemeanor charge is a year in jail and a $2,000 fine.

Falwell, the university's chancellor, had warned the group that it would not be permitted on campus, saying he would not allow his school to be used for a media event aimed at raising money for gay rights.

"Neither will we permit them to espouse opinions or otherwise suggest beliefs or lifestyles that are in opposition to the morals and values that this institution promotes," he said in a statement issued earlier.

In other words, these folks had been warned to stay off the campus, though they had every legal right to protest off the school grounds. They were left alone until they decided to break the law.

The tour group, made up of young adults from around the country, has scheduled visits to 19 colleges and universities this month and next.

Monday, the tour plans to visit Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson's Regent University in Virginia Beach, where Reitan said the group was prepared for more arrests. The school this week withdrew its invitation to three events on campus, citing a fear that the visit would turn into a publicity stunt.

"If we get arrested, it just shows how close-minded that campus is," Reitan said.

No, Mr. Reitan -- it simply shows how lawless you and your group are. You demand the right to appropriate the property of others to make your point about your religious beliefs, while refusing to recognize the rights of others to live out their religious beliefs. You claim to be abut diversity, but when it comes right down to it, you believe that "diversity" means that everyone has to believe and act exactly the way you do.

Quite frankly, you and Soulforce are nothing but religious fascists who have a long history of criminal conduct and interference with the First Amendment rights of others (Soulforce has been known to disrupt religious services) as you attempt to impose YOUR interpretation of Scripture on others. It is my belief that you worship yourself and your genitals much more devoutly than you have ever worshipped God.

Here's hoping that they throw the book at you when you are convicted of this criminal act and the others you and your group are conspiring to commit.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Blue Star Chronicles, Bacon Bits, Liberal Wrong Wing, Stuck On Stupid, Median Sib, Third World Country, Adam's Blog, The Real Ugly American, Uncooperative Blogger, Voteswagon, Samantha Burns, Jo's Cafe, Don Surber, Is It Just Me?, Camelot Destra Ideale, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 06:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 815 words, total size 7 kb.

Doug Patton really tears into the teachings and actions of Democrat activist and pseudo-Christian cult leader Fred Phelps in a column today.

Fred Phelps calls himself a Christian minister, but his actions resemble a self-styled hatemonger with no room in his heart for the love of God or the forgiveness taught in ChristÂ’s Gospel.

Phelps has been a preacher (defrocked), a lawyer (disbarred) and a Democrat politician (never elected). Now, at age 76, his “church” is a congregation consisting of his 13 children and 50 grandchildren in a tiny compound in Topeka, Kansas. He is also the epitome of everything the elitist secular left would love to believe about every Christian conservative in America.

Phelps first foisted his annoying presence onto the national consciousness when Matthew Sheppard, a young homosexual, was beaten to death in Wyoming in 1998. Phelps and his “followers” protested outside Sheppard’s funeral service with signs that read “God Hates Fags.” That, in a nutshell, is Phelps’ entire message. Google those words and you will be taken right to the website of Phelps so-called church, Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka. That is actually the website address of the church: www.GodHatesFags.com.

On the home page of the web site, you will be treated to a tab labeled “Love Crusades,” wherein this sick soul lists the upcoming funerals he intends to picket. Over the years, the Westboro weirdoes also have found reasons (apparently somehow relating to homosexuality) to picket the funerals of Frank Sinatra, Ronald Reagan, William Rehnquist, Coretta Scott King and Mr. Rogers. They have even protested at meetings conducted by Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson because they do not share Phelps’ hatred of homosexuals.

Phelps once wrote to Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro, praising both for their intolerance of homosexuality and even offering to travel to Baghdad and Havana in support of their tyranny on the issue. Fidel declined the offer, but Saddam accepted and must have been amused at this crazy, white-haired, Mississippi-born American preacher standing on Baghdad street corners ranting against “fags.”

Now Phelps and his ilk have stuck their picket signs into a hornets’ nest. They are protesting at the funerals of American soldiers. At the recent service for a fallen young hero killed in Iraq, these deluded individuals showed up in Lincoln, Nebraska, with signs that read “Thank God for IEDs” (a reference to improvised explosive devices being used to kill American troops in Iraq) and “Don’t Pray For America.” Why? Because in Fred Phelps’ twisted worldview, God is punishing America for tolerating homosexuality.

This kind of paranoid hatred, focused like a laser beam on a group of people whose sin is no better or worse than that of you, me or the self-righteous Mr. Phelps himself, reminds me of a story I heard once about a group of newly converted Christians in China. Because of the Chinese governmentÂ’s intolerant policy toward Christianity, each of these new believers tore a single page from the only Bible they had to share among them. They meditated on that page of scripture and committed it to memory. In time, as they were scattered among the population and had no further contact with the Christian brothers and sisters who had the rest of the puzzle, they came to believe only in what their page of scripture taught them. Eventually, cults sprang up based on one page or even one passage of the Bible.

In the Chinese example, they had an excuse. They had only a small sliver of scripture to guide their faith. Fred Phelps has the entire Bible from which to discern the truth, and yet he has chosen to focus his attention on a few passages that clearly speak against the sin of homosexuality, while ignoring everything else, including the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ, which scripture clearly teaches can wash away the sin of any and all believers.

Amen, Brother Patton.

Posted by: Greg at 05:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 666 words, total size 4 kb.

A group of Houston Muslims peacefully protested the Muhammad cartoons yesterday.

More than 100 Muslim men, women and children rallied Friday at City Hall to praise the Prophet Muhammad as a peaceful man and to criticize Danish cartoons portraying him as violent.

Organizers said they wanted Houstonians to understand who Muhammad was and what he means to Muslims.

"On the one hand (the cartoons) are an insult, like a punch in the stomach," said Hyder Ali Syed, a pharmacist and one of the organizers of Houston's Muslims for Peace and Justice, a newly formed coalition.

"On the other hand, the reverence we have for him stems from the fact that he taught us a way of life and all the positives that you can imagine," Syed said. "He reformed society and brought in so many changes for the good."

The coalition includes the Islamic Education Center, the Al-Ghadeer Education Foundation and Al-Murtaza. Participants, who included both Sunni and Shiite Muslims, chanted and marched around City Hall with signs bearing such slogans as "Islam Frees the Soul," "Please Draw Carefully — We (heart) Our Prophet" and "Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad — peace be upon them."

Good for them. They behaved like civilized human beings. I can disagree with them on the nature of their false prophet while still according them respect for having absorbed a sufficient amount of Western culture to not engage in the antics of their brothers and sisters back in the old country -- or even the radical Islamists in Europe who called for the murder of the cartoonists and those of us who published the cartoons.

However, I love the connection they try to draw here.

Protests over the cartoons swept the Islamic world in January and early February. Syed said they had discussed a local protest earlier, but were spurred into action by the Feb. 22 bombing of the Al-Askariya Mosque in Samarra, Iraq.

"We had one insult to our holy personality the prophet and now the mosque, where the descendants of the prophet are buried is destroyed," he explained.

But he told the gathering that it was not the time for animosity. Muslims need to encourage understanding between religions and be calm and open-minded, he said.

So what is the connection between Europeans drawing cartoons accurately depicting your religion's false prophet and your fellow Muslims destroying one of Shi'ite Islam's holiest shrine in an attempt to provoke a civil war? Is it your intent to blame America, Europe, and Israel for the barbarism of your own people? Or are you attempting to make a direct accusation without coming out and saying it?

So, Hyder Ali Syed, how about if you hold a rally next weekend protesting your fellow Muslims and their acts of violence -- like the destruction of the Al-Askariya Mosque, the beheading of hostages, or perhaps even 9/11. Maybe then I will come out and join you.

Posted by: Greg at 05:27 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 3 kb.

Marvin Olasky presents a list of books that might help the reader understand Islam -- both the radical version and its more benign-appearing moderate cousin.

Since 9-11, I've received numerous letters like this recent one: "What can be done to help educate people on the dangers that radical Islam poses to Western civilization? I don't think this ideological conflict will go away."

No, it won't. It is likely to be for the first half of the 21st century what the Cold War was for the last half of the 20th -- a long, subtle struggle with occasional days of fire. How to educate folks? Use of all media will be needed, but here's a list of books I've read and found useful. There are many more that I haven't read.

First, to understand radical Islam, some sense of basic Islam is essential, and that starts with the Quran. Muslims insist that unless you've read it in Arabic, you haven't read it. Maybe so, but in theology as well as in horseshoes, leaners are better than nothing, so I'd recommend either reading a translation on the Internet or buying the new Quran translation by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem that came out last year in paperback from Oxford University Press.

The list that follows is comprehensive and accessible -- and the information the books contain should help anyone with an open mind understand why we need to fight the terrorists and promote Western values in the Islamic world.

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Brent Bozell raises the question of media bias -- outright anti-Catholicism, as a matter of fact -- in Katie Couric's interview with Tom Monaghan regarding his plans to form a town which is infused with Catholic values.

You'd think Katie Couric would aspire to be an anchorwoman for all the American people now that CBS appears to be wooing her for the Throne of Rather. So why did she have to be so rough on Thomas Monaghan, the founder of Domino's Pizza, for being a Catholic?

Monaghan has an extraordinary American story. After struggling badly with his brother in a failing pizza business, he bought his brother out in 1960 and, by the 1980s, had accumulated amazing riches. He was enjoying them, too, all the gaudy trappings of success, and then he read the book "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. Reading about the great sin of pride, his life changed dramatically. He stopped concentrating on material things, instead focusing his energies, and his wealth, in pursuit of spiritual good. He poured millions upon millions of dollars into pro-life and Catholic philanthropy. Among other ventures, he founded Ave Maria University. After facing zoning problems with his first location in Michigan, Monaghan struck a deal in southern Florida, not to merely build a Catholic college, but a truly Catholic town, open to anyone aspiring to live in communion with traditional values.

That, of course, is when he earned the ire of Katie Couric. Monaghan and his developer partner Paul Marinelli appeared on the three network morning shows on March 3, but whereas ABC and CBS were calm, Couric's performance on NBC was so harsh it was jaw-dropping.

* * *

Couric betrayed her secular liberal allegiances by baldly concluding the interview: "Well, we'll probably be following this story, because I know the ACLU is, too." Then she laughed.

Even today, other religions have started up communities founded on their beliefs. In southwestern Iowa, some New Age Hindus have created the town of Maharishi Vedic City, a religious center based on the principles and teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. There's been no dire civil-liberties alert from Couric yet, even though the city has banned the sale of non-organic food and the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.

Stop the presses! Get Couric on the line! Civil rights at risk! Intolerance and bigotry afoot! Oh, wait ... wait. You said Hindus? Oh, never mind.

But don't you understand, Brent? Hindus are a part of the new, diverse America that left-wing moonbats and bimbos like Katie Couric are so fond of. Catholics -- at least ones who actually believe what the Catholic Church teaches -- are alien to America and never to be trusted. I'm surprised she didn't use this old Thomas Nast cartoon as a graphic.

Who says that anti-Catholicism is dead in America?

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 4 kb.

Will hate crime charges be pending against these church burners?

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- Two Birmingham college students have been arrested and a third is being sought in the string of church arsons that destroyed or damaged nine rural churches in Alabama last month, federal law enforcement officials said Wednesday.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because details are under court seal and the formal announcement is to be made later, said the two are being charged with conspiracy and individual counts in the arsons at five Bibb County churches and four in west Alabama.

Arson investigators scheduled an afternoon news conference at the Tuscaloosa airport to discuss the arrests.

Federal law officers said the two arrested were students at Birmingham-Southern College, and the third person being sought was described as a student at another Birmingham school.

The two in custody were brought to the federal courthouse in Birmingham for their initial appearance before a federal magistrate.

It will be interesting to see what traits these three mutts share in common. I won't speculate, but I have some suspicions.

Posted by: Greg at 06:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

And they even named you after his mom.

MADONNA is trying to buy a house overlooking the Sea of Galilee at the place where followers of her Kabbalist faith expect the Messiah to reappear to herald world peace.

Representatives of the 47-year-old US singer have been cold calling home-owners in the picturesque mountain retreat of Rosh Pina and offering to pay any price to secure a property on her behalf.

The star — who was raised an Italian Catholic but adopted the Hebrew name Esther several years ago — wants the house to turn it into a Kabbalah study centre where followers can pore over the mystical texts.

When she made a highly publicised trip to Israel 18 months ago she visited many sites important to Kabbalah.

Kabbalists believe that the Messiah will appear at Safed and walk to Tiberias on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, travelling along the ravine that cuts through Rosh Pina.

But at least her soul is striving in the right direction.

She could have become a Scientologist.

Posted by: Greg at 02:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

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.