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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh refutes Prager well at National Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The homeowner has a different point of view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He dismissed the committee and imposed the fine himself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tastan and Topal denied the accusations in court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will McDonald's go all halal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) HE OBJECTS TO:

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

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

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

2) HE OBJECTS TO:

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

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

3) HE OBJECTS TO:

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

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

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

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

4) HE OBJECTS TO:

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

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

5) HE OBJECTS TO:

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

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

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

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

6) HE OBJECTS TO:.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think Suzanne Fields says it quite well in this piece, which demonstrates the anti-Semitism underlying so much of the criticism of Israel today -- and the tendency of some people to blame every evil on the Jews.

When Jews is news

"Jewcentricity" is a word that sounds like it was coined by an embittered anti-Semite. But it's actually the inspiration of Adam Garfinkle, a Jew, writing in The American Interest magazine to call attention to a phenomenon that has roots in anti-Semitism and runs from the silly to the sublime: " . . . the idea, or the intimation, or the subconscious presumption . . . that Jews are somehow necessarily to be found at the very center of global-historical events."

"Jewcentricity" is most evident in the recycling of "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," a fictitious text commissioned by the czar's secret police for a Russian audience at the end of the 19th century, describing a fanciful cabal of Jews who plan to take over the world. Some critics of the neoconservatives, some of whom are Jewish, cite the protocols, so called, in their accusations that Jews have hijacked American foreign policy. Others, critical of Israel, hyperventilate over the power of the "Israel lobby."

"The Protocols" have naturally become a best seller in several Muslim countries, including Turkey and Egypt, where they were turned into a television series. ("Semitic Sex in the City," however, it was not.) "The Protocols" were featured on the Iranian stands at last year's book fair in Frankfurt "to expose the real visage of this Satanic-enemy," along with an abridged edition of Henry Ford's literary thriller, "The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem" (which never made it to the screen). "The grip of the Jewish parasitic influence," asserts the preface of the new edition, "has been growing stronger and stronger ever since [Henry Ford's time]."

Serious examples of "Jewcentricity" are reflected in the media obsession with Sen. George Allen's Jewish mother, who was born in Tunisia and barely escaped the Holocaust, and before that, with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's Jewish roots in Czechoslovakia. The national newspapers and television networks spent considerably more time investigating the senator's "blood" parentage and its likely effect on his re-election campaign than the blood being spilled in Darfur. "Why?" asks Adam Garfinkle. "Because . . . Jews is news and there are no Jews in Darfur." That doesn't slow down the conspiracy theorists in other countries, with or without Jews, from obsessing over the myth of sinister Jewish power.

Germany's Jewcentricity is of a completely different order. No negative slur against Jews goes unanswered in the law courts or in the court of public opinion. This has hardly eliminated prejudice against Jews. In an anti-Semitic prank with echoes of the Third Reich, a high-school student in eastern Germany was forced by bullies not long ago to wear a sign around his neck in the school yard: "In this town I'm the biggest swine because of the Jewish friends of mine." The teacher reported it, the chief of police was firm in his outrage, and the state minister of the interior promised an investigation. Germany does not tolerate public exhibition of Nazi symbols.

But the strain of anti-Semitism that many thought would vanish after the horror of the Holocaust has again risen again in the Middle East and among European fellow travelers of the Islamists, whose rhetoric targets Israel in a way that Hitler would readily recognize. Israel is the euphemism for the demonized Jew. The Jews become, as Jonathan Rosen observed in The New York Times, "interchangeable emblems of cosmic evil."

It's not simply an empty gesture that maps available in Middle Eastern countries show Israel erased. Hezbollah demonstrated its capacity to send rockets into Israel, and the Iranian nuclear threat is aimed first at Israel.

Jews remain convenient scapegoats as they continue to haunt the fantasies of rationalizers and haters who want to avoid responsibility for their own culpability. In the 1930s, Jews were blamed for everything that went wrong in Germany (and later in Eastern Europe). Today they're perceived as the seminal cause of Islamic terrorism, subject to the same old media stereotypes that thrived in Nazi newspapers. Getting rid of the Jews in Europe wasn't enough.

"Jewcentricity" serves a specific purpose both in the Middle East and in Europe. It unites the Muslims against a common enemy and conceals their own divisions and discontents, which would be there even if there were not an Israel to hate. Increasing Muslim populations in Europe threaten the peace in ways that absent Jews do not. But we can blame the Jews, anyway.

The Nobel Prize-winning Hungarian novelist Imre Kertesz observes that Europeans mask their criticism of Israel in mournful tones about the Holocaust but use the language that led to Auschwitz. "Because Auschwitz really happened, it has permeated our imagination, become a permanent part of us," he says. "What we are able to imagine -- because it really happened -- can happen again."

And that some today wish to minimize or deny the historical reality of Auschwitz and the other death camps makes such a repeated attempt at genocide all the more likely.

Posted by: Greg at 11:42 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 870 words, total size 5 kb.

Having been part of a church doing a renovation, I know what passions can be arroused. And when you are renewing a historic building with great sentimental value to an entire faith, I can imagine things only get more difficult.

When the historic Tabernacle, the egg-shaped building that is home to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, reopens next year after a lengthy face-lift and seismic retrofit, visitors will find something new: the pews.

The loss of the original, and uncomfortable, pine pews, handmade in 1867 and meticulously etched and painted to look like oak, angers many Mormons, whose religion is strongly defined by its history and its forebearsÂ’ hardships.

Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, released a two-sentence statement saying some original pews — Ms. Farah would not say how many — would be returned and that others would be replaced with oak copies “to maintain historicity.” “No determination has been made on what will happen to the unused original benches,” the statement said.

Church officials would not give an explanation for the change, Ms. Farah said in an interview.

“The church is circumspect about the pews, because it is a work in progress,” she said of the Tabernacle renovations, including the pews.

Lack of an explanation angered LaMar Taft Merrill Jr., a retired schoolteacher who grew up here and lives in Lexington, Ky. Mr. Merrill, a descendant of an early church apostle, said not returning the pine pews would be a “shameful act” by the church’s “misguided top echelon.”

“You can’t ever replace what’s original,” he said. “And an oak bench is no more comfortable than a pine bench.”

I'm sure there are reaons for the new pews -- but I cannot think of what they are. The original pews are still in good shape? Why replace that link to the past?

Posted by: Greg at 10:03 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

We keep hearing that women have high status in Islam. But then you get a book, popular in American mosques, written by a prominent Islamic leader, which advocates the following. It makes it clear what the practical status of women is in that religion.

When dealing with a "disobedient wife," a Muslim man has a number of options. First, he should remind her of "the importance of following the instructions of the husband in Islam." If that doesn't work, he can "leave the wife's bed." Finally, he may "beat" her, though it must be without "hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the face, at any cost."

Such appalling recommendations, drawn from the book "Woman in the Shade of Islam" by Saudi scholar Abdul Rahman al-Sheha, are inspired by as authoritative a source as any Muslim could hope to find: a literal reading of the 34th verse of the fourth chapter of the Koran, An-Nisa , or Women. "[A]nd (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them," reads one widely accepted translation.

And for those who want to argue that the author of the book, a Saudi cleric, was representing a minority position or one held only abroad, consider the experience of the author only a few weeks after she received a copy.

Not long after I picked up the free Saudi book, Mahmoud Shalash, an imam from Lexington, Ky., stood at the pulpit of my mosque and offered marital advice to the 100 or so men sitting before him. He repeated the three-step plan, with "beat them" as his final suggestion. Upstairs, in the women's balcony, sat a Muslim friend who had recently left her husband, who she said had abused her; her spouse sat among the men in the main hall.

At the sermon's end, I approached Shalash. "This is America," I protested. "How can you tell men to beat their wives?"

"They should beat them lightly," he explained. "It's in the Koran."

And even one online audio sermon (now censored after the speaker was challenged on the issue) made the following suggestion.

Last October, I listened to an online audio sermon by an American Muslim preacher, Sheik Yusuf Estes, who was scheduled to speak at West Virginia University as a guest of the Muslim Student Association. He soon moved to the subject of disobedient wives, and his recommendations mirrored the literal reading of 4:34. First, "tell them." Second, "leave the bed." Finally: "Roll up a newspaper and give her a crack. Or take a yardstick, something like this, and you can hit."

An imam from Kentucky, addressing a mosque in West Virginia. Telling the men to beat their wives.

And yet the feminists are silent about Islam.

I've been accused of hatred and bigotry for daring to suggest that there is something fundamentally barbaric about Islam. But my (liberal) critics fail to address the barbarism of the teaching that women should be beaten. They would insist that any Christian organization that advocated domestic violence be banned from every college campus in the nation -- but they are supportive of the presence of Muslim organizations that advocate physical abuse of disobedient women as a mark of diversity and pluralism.

I'm sorry -- such diversity and pluralism are not useful or needed anywhere in our society. Fundamental respect for women requires taht we condemn such teachings and the violence and sexual assault that come with them. Islam must change -- or Islam must be rejected, marginalized and excluded.

Unless, of course, we in the civilized world wish to reconsider our views against the physical and sexual abuse of women, and adopt the "enlightened" ways of Islam.

Posted by: Greg at 01:09 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 634 words, total size 4 kb.

To us in the West, that is a line from a Monty Python movie.

In Iran and other parts of the Islamic world, it is a reality, due to the imposition of sharia law. Article 83 of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran, as one example, declares stoning to death a permissible punishment for some types of adultery.

This needs to be read by every American -- indeed, by ever citizen of the civilized world. I've put the more graphic details below the fold.

Hello.

I read your recent article about stoning to death.

Reading your article reminded me of the bleeding bruises in my heart once again.

You wrote about murdering by stoning.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:47 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 734 words, total size 5 kb.

I guess I don't find any of this to be a big deal. After all, what the board of the institution has done is indicate it is going to stay within the bounds of what has always been Baptist custom and practice.

Trustees at a Baptist seminary have put it in writing: They will not tolerate any promotion of speaking in tongues on their campus.

The 36-1 vote Tuesday came nearly two months after the Rev. Dwight McKissic of Arlington said during a chapel service at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary that he sometimes speaks in tongues while praying.

McKissic, a new trustee at the Fort Worth school, passed the lone dissenting vote on the resolution.

It states: "Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including private prayer language. Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices."

As an organization, Baptists (especially Southern Baptists) are not charismatic/pentecostal in their theological stance. As a seminary, the school is indicating that it will anchor itself to baptist tradition.

That isn't to say that I have a problem with any of the spiritual practices the school disassociates itself from -- I remain neutral on the validity of them.

Frankly, I'd be shocked if it did not -- and would hope that any seminary of any denomination would cling to its its doctrinal anchors.

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

This little tidbit, commented upon by Stop the ACLU and Jawa Report, is utterly stunning

Emadeddin Z. Muntasser and Muhammed Mubayyid face charges in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts for the soliciting and expenditure "of funds to support and promote the mujahideen and jihad, including the distribution of pro-jihad publications." Their Care International "charity," a now-defunct Boston-based al Qaeda front organization, published, among other things, the English version by al Qaeda co-founder Abdullah Azzam of "Join the Caravan," which states: "he obligation of Jihad today remains [individually required] until the last piece of land, which was in the hand of the Muslims, but has been occupied by disbelievers, is liberated."

In their Oct. 5 request for a dismissal, the defendants effectively -- and unwittingly -- explain all the reasons why the federal government should outlaw Islamic charitable giving in the United States.

In their motion, attorneys Mrs. Estrich, Malick Ghachem, Norman Zalkind and Elizabeth Lunt, argue that the defendants merely exercised their religious freedom and obligation to give "zakat" (Islamic charity).

Their motion cites Chapter 9, verse 60 of the Koran, which describes "those entitled to receive zakat." According to the definition of zakat in The Encyclopedia of Islam, "category 7" of eligible recipients are "volunteers engaged in jihad" for whom the zakat cover "living expenses and the expenses of their military service (animals, weapons)."

In other words, faithfully practicing Islam mandates the funding of terrorist activities -- and funds given in support of jihadi terrorism should be tax-deductable!

We Americans keep being told that jihadi terrorism is not a true face of Islam, that Islam is a religion of peace and that terrorist activites are contrary to its teachings. We are frequently told that jihad is an internal struggle and not the spreading of Islamic hegemony by the sword. yet the argument presented in federal court by distinguished lawyers -- law professors, the campaign manager for a former Democrat nominee for president, and the former head of a state ACLU chapter -- are arguing precisely the opposite as they seek the dismissal of the charges against individuals who have aided and abetted terrorism.

I'm not sure which is more shocking -- that these "respectable" folks are explicitly siding with jihadi terrorism against the United States, or that they are arguing that the United States Constitution protects jihadi terrorism against interference by the United Staes government.

Oh, and this is one more reason to vote Republican -- the ACLU is an actively partisan group that favors teh Democrats, and Estrich is a likely judicial nominee in any future Democrat presidential administration.

MORE AT: Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Ace of Spades, Texas Hold 'Em, Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 4 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

That the power of taxing by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it, is too obvious to be denied. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

That principle is a cardinal part of our nation's constitutional jurisprudence. And Yet, the NY Times would set it aside in the case of religion, and with it the First Amendment rights of Americans.

Religious institutions should be protected from excessive intrusion by government. Judges should not tell churches who they have to hire as ministers, or meddle in doctrinal disputes. But under pressure from politically influential religious groups, Congress, the White House, and federal and state courts have expanded this principle beyond all reason. It is increasingly being applied to people, buildings and programs only tangentially related to religion.

In its expanded form, this principle amounts to an enormous subsidy for religion, in some cases violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. It also undermines core American values, like the right to be free from job discrimination. It puts secular entrepreneurs at an unfair competitive disadvantage. And it deprives states and localities of much-needed tax revenues, putting a heavier burden on ordinary taxpayers.

Like most special-interest handouts, these privileges exist in large part because the majority is not aware, or is not being heard. With property taxes growing ever more burdensome, it is likely that localities will start to give religious exemptions closer scrutiny. People who care about discrimination-free workplaces, the right to unionize and childrenÂ’s safety should also start to push back.

Indeed, the NY Tmes akes a specific call for taxation of xhurcxhes, a much learer and much more substantial threat to the First Amendment than the exemptions it complains of could ever be. After all, who is going to determine what is essential to the free exercise of religion or cetral to a church's religious mission -- the church or the government? The authors of the editorial would support an entanglement of religion and government that they would never accept if we were talking about, for example, giving vouchers to allow shchool choice.

And more to the point, in every case that the NY Times raises a question regarding exemptions from taxation or regulation of religious institutions, it fails to ask a question that I think would be central to the issue if one does not believe in virtually unlimited government power -- is it the burden of taxation and regulation imposed upon society that is onerous, and not the exemptions permitted to those who do the work of God? Are the rest of us too oppressed by government, rather than religious institutions too free?

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.

Does religious tolerance dictate silence about those things that a faith says may not be discussed? Does the freedom to speak critically about historical figures, theology, and uncomfortable truths endure even when such speech offends religious believers? That is an issue that is being faced today in France, and in much of the Western world.

Most, I suspect, would agree that murders, looters, polygamists and such deserve little respect. Why then cannot there be an honest debate over whether Mohammed was -- as M. Redeker alleges -- a "merciless warlord, a looter, a mass murderer of Jews and a polygamist"? Simply because Islam allows of no debate when it comes to Allah, his prophet, and his word. And the French government is fine with that.

That's where provocateurs like M. Redeker come in. Redeker is simply trying to kick-start that debate, even at the price of his own hide. That takes guts, I think, something the French politicians lack. And something Muslim intellectuals like Prof. Tariq Ramadan, the French university lecturer, cannot comprehend. Ramadan ominously warned M. Redeker that he can write what he likes, "but he must know what he wanted -- he signed a stupidly provocative text."

It is clear, in the case of Tariq Ramadan, that those who speak uncomfortable truths or dare to critically examine things held sacred by some believers deserve to be attacked verbally and physically – and indeed have chosen a course to action that merits such assaults and even death. Strangely enough, Ramadan does not extend his crabbed view of freedom to those who, like himself, espouse the hateful teachings of jihadi Islamism. After all, he is currently suing in a federal court demanding that he be allowed to travel to the US to take a position at a major university, and makes the claim that a denial of a visa is illegitimate because it is based upon a desire to censor his views. Perhaps we simply need to clarify to this Islamist swine that until he learns to respect the rights of non-Muslims to speak negatively about Islam (or any other religion), he is not welcome on our continent.

Posted by: Greg at 09:24 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 2 kb.

We hear of such moves from time to time -- will the Latin Mass be brought back as an option for the Catholic Church?

THE Pope is taking steps to revive the ancient tradition of the Latin Tridentine Mass in Catholic churches worldwide, according to sources in Rome.

Pope Benedict XVI is understood to have signed a universal indult — or permission — for priests to celebrate again the Mass used throughout the Church for nearly 1,500 years. The indult could be published in the next few weeks, sources told The Times.

Use of the Tridentine Mass, parts of which date from the time of St Gregory in the 6th century and which takes its name from the 16th-century Council of Trent, was restricted by most bishops after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

This led to the introduction of the new Mass in the vernacular to make it more accessible to contemporary audiences. By bringing back Mass in Latin, Pope Benedict is signalling that his sympathies lie with conservatives in the Catholic Church.

During my seminary days, i knew any number of my fellow seminarians and lay people who wanted to see the Tridentine Rite made more available, due to both an attachment to the Church of their youth and a respect for the history o the Church. This will help to satisfy those folks. It may also help to heal the rift between schismatic supporters of the Latin Mass and the Catholic Church. This seems like a measured, moderate move on the part of a Pope who seems most interested in bringing reasonable people of faith together, not dividing them.

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, we get reports of Christian parents murdering their children because they want to leave the faith every day -- don't we?

A RELIGIOUS feud between a Muslim father and his teenage daughter may have sparked a bloody domestic dispute on Queensland's Gold Coast which left the man's wife dead and him fighting for life in hospital.

Police are investigating suggestions the violence erupted after the 17-year-old girl told her father she wanted to opt out of the Islamic faith and convert to Christianity. The girl's mother is believed to have stepped in to protect her daughter, only to be fatally stabbed with a kitchen knife.

Neighbours reported hearing "blood-curdling" screams before the hysterical girl ran half-naked from their Southport home unit covered in scratches.

Police later found the body of the girl's mother, 41, inside the blood-smeared unit. Her husband was taken to the Gold Coast Hospital with a stab wound to the chest. He was last night in a critical condition under police guard.

I've known parents who were sad or angry over the decision of a parent who chose to convert from Christianity to some other faith. But I've never met, or read about, a parent who tried to kill a child over that issue.

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 1 kb.

I'd like to think I could achieve this level of forgiveness. I don't know that I could.

Dozens of Amish neighbors came out Saturday to mourn the quiet milkman who killed five of their young girls and wounded five more in a brief, unfathomable rampage.

Charles Roberts, 32, was buried in his wife's family plot behind a small Methodist church, a few miles from the one-room schoolhouse he stormed Monday.

His wife, Marie, and their three small children looked on as Roberts was buried beside the pink, heart-shaped gravestone of the infant daughter whose death nine years ago apparently haunted him.

About half of perhaps 75 mourners on hand were Amish.

"It's the love, the forgiveness, the heartfelt forgiveness they have toward the family. I broke down and cried seeing it displayed," said Bruce Porter, a fire department chaplain from Morrison, Colo., who had come to Pennsylvania to offer what help he could and attended the burial. He said Marie Roberts also was touched.

"She was absolutely deeply moved by just the love shown," Porter said.

I disagree with various points of Amish teaching and theology -- but I do respect the group. Acts such of this show why their witness among the Christian community is so important.

UPDATE: Got to Church this morning and guess what the sermon illustration was.

Posted by: Greg at 01:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

That is the charge made against Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) after they filed a Freedom of Information Act request on Wednesday.

A liberal government watchdog group has asked the Secret Service to release its records of prominent conservative Christian leaders' visits to the White House, but one of those leaders called the request "an act of Christianophobia."

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on Wednesday. The group said in the request that the records are "likely to contribute to the public's understanding of the influence that conservative Christian leaders have, or attempt to have, on the president in the exercise of his authority."

The Secret Service has 20 business days to respond to the request for records pertaining to James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Gary Bauer of American Values, Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, Louis Sheldon and Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Don Wildmon of American Family Association, and Jerry Falwell of Liberty University.

"These are people that are publicly identifiable as leaders of what I would call the Christian right, and we are interested to know the extent of influence that they may have had on the president and his policies," Anne Weismann, chief counsel for CREW, told Cybercast News Service.

"It's one thing to know that people have influence and have support of the president, but I don't know that that answers the question about the degree to which they have access and influence to the president and his staff on a day-to-day basis," Weismann added.

I’m curious – what would the response be to a conservative group if it requested access to the records of the visit of prominent black leaders, Jewish leaders, Muslim leaders, homosexual leaders or other minority group leaders? I think the question answers itself – and clearly indicates the despicable nature of the request.

Posted by: Greg at 01:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

IÂ’d be shocked, but weÂ’ve all seen in recent years that too many Muslims have no sense of shame.

The Islamic world will be relieved if the Pope makes a full apology," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.

In an interview on the Fox TV, Erdogan said that religious leaders should refrain from using the words of Islam and terrorism together.

"Such remarks hurt all the Muslims. We should refrain from remarks which may overshadow alliance of civilizations," he stressed.

First, the Pope has nothing to apologize for.

Second, weÂ’ll quit linking Islam and terrorism when the terrorists do.

Posted by: Greg at 08:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Here is a politician with a little bit of moral clarity on the issue of terrorism and Islam.

A top German politician and close ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday Islam was one of the main factors in religiously motivated violence, and urged Germany's Muslims to reject all forms of brutality.

But Ronald Pofalla, general-secretary of Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats, also acknowledged that many Muslims would find it painful that their religion was being abused for violent ends.

"Certainly it is painful for many Muslims that their religion is misused for violence," Pofalla wrote in a guest column for Sunday's Bild am Sonntag newspaper.

"But ... the problem of religiously motivated violence is today almost exclusively a problem of Islam. In addition, many of the victims are Muslims themselves," he said, according to extracts released in advance on Saturday.

Pofalla also noted that Muslims need to be prepared to accept criticism of their faith, as well as teh right of Christians to defend theirs.

The observation is quite accurate -- most of the victims of violence by Muslims are other Muslims. Now I could argue that Pofalla is wrong in stating that Islam is being misused, given the long and consistently bloody history of the followers of teh false prophet Muhammad, but I'm willing to concede that in many parts of the world we find a plurality of Muslims who object to terrorism in the name of their faith. The problem, of course, is that they are afraid to speak out or act against the violent faction among them.

I cannot help but be struck, however, by the response to a statement that implicitly rejects the notion that Islam is a violent faith and that notes that the violence takes a heavier toll on Muslims than on anyone else.

The Central Council of Muslims in Germany criticized Pofalla's comments, saying generalizations such as he made only reinforced stereotypes and prejudices.

"I get the impression that some CDU people want to take one step forward and two steps back," Aiman Mazyek, the Council's general-secretary, told Sunday's Tagesspiegel newspaper.

In other words, "How dare you criticize Islam, you infidel dog! You should be killed for insulting our religion."

Look for such statemetns to begin appearing from the jihadis any time now -- and for the Muslims who claim to oppose violence and oppression carried out in the name of their religion.

Posted by: Greg at 09:07 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

Just an idle thought after reading this from the Catholic League.

SUNY SPONSORS SATANISM

On September 30, Adirondack Community College (ACC) will sponsor Pagan Pride Day. ACC, located outside Lake George in Queensbury, New York, is part of the State University of New York (SUNY).

HereÂ’s what Catholic League president Bill Donohue had to say:

“ACC Student Association, which is hosting Pagan Pride Day, says the event is free to the public and is designed to be ‘a celebration of religious diversity.’ But nothing is free—New York taxpayers are paying for this event—and a panel on religious diversity that was initially considered will not occur. However, Patricia Telesco will be there, author of How to be a Wicked Witch, and so will John Allee, a Satanic priest and founder of the First Church of Satan.

“According to an ACC news release, ‘The purpose of Pagan Pride Day is to support religious tolerance, eliminate prejudice based on religious beliefs,’ and other noble goals. But it is a lie. On the website of the First Church of Satan, Christians are instructed that they can ‘deprogram’ themselves by ‘making fun of religious dogma.’ But before one gets to the FAQ part of the website, a short video pops up on the home page to the tune of Gloria Gaynor’s song, ‘I Will Survive’; a bearded man posing as Jesus dressed in a white robe starts mimicking the words. He then disrobes and struts down a street in a diaper before being hit by a bus.

“Other videos include ‘Gideon Bible Rant,’ a diatribe that shows a picture of the Bible with a sticker on it, ‘Warning! Literal belief in this book may endanger your health and life.’ Then there is ‘Satanic Sexual Vision,’ which features a woman dressed as a nun in a black veil wearing a black bra, black slip and black panties; she is shown masturbating. ‘Do You Take It Up the A--?’ depicts simulated anal sex, but ‘Keep Your Jesus Off My Penis’ is no longer available. This isn’t higher education—it’s an obscene assault on Christianity.”

Contact John J. OÂ’Connor, vice chancellor,john.o'connor@suny.edu, and Thomas F. Egan, chairman of SUNYÂ’s board of trustees, thomas.f.egan@citigroup.com.

Where is the ACLU on this clear violation of separation of church and state?

Posted by: Greg at 11:27 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 393 words, total size 3 kb.

Sean O'Malley -- Cardinal Archbishop of Boston!

He has spiced his entries with "lol," Internet slang for "laughing out loud," posted snapshots of himself pointing at a roadside pizza stand and written about the warm soda in a cheap Italian restaurant.

Launching his blog on a trip to Rome, Cardinal Sean O'Malley sounds at times more like a college student making his first trip to Europe than a prince of the church. Jokey and informal, the Boston archbishop is trying his best to reach out to a generation of Catholics hooked on instant messaging and MySpace.

On Saturday, he teased his readers with tales of his days as a young seminarian in Germany in the 1960s. "I and everyone else were wearing lederhosen in those days," O'Malley wrote on cardinalseansblog.org.

" ... But, do not try to find those pictures because I assure you that the negatives have been destroyed. ... LOL!"

Catholics and blog specialists praise the blog as surprisingly readable. Since O'Malley launched the Web site last week, he has received 65,585 page views and scores of comments.

It is an interesting place. I hope this is a project that continues, because he brings a different perspective to life, faith, and the blogosphere. Look in on his site if you get the chance.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

Somebody had to say it.

Former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar on Friday defended Pope Benedict XVIÂ’s comments about Islam, saying the pontiff had no need to apologise and asking why Muslims never did, according to newspaper reports published on Saturday.

“Why do we always have to say sorry and they never do?” Mr Aznar told a conference in the United States.

“It is interesting to note that while a lot of people in the world are asking the pope to apologise for his speech, I have never heard a Muslim say sorry for having conquered Spain and occupying it for eight centuries.”

He was referring to the Muslim conquest of much of the Iberian peninsula, which lasted from the eighth to the 15th century.

And might we add to that the Muslim conquest of other Christian territory, such as the Holy Land, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey, Greece, North Africa, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia. . . .

Posted by: Greg at 10:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

Lost in the sound and fury over the Pope's use of the seven century old words of a Byzantine emperor to critique Islam has been Benedict's critique of the decline of the notion of objective truth in the West.

The pope's third point — which has been almost entirely ignored — was directed to the West. If the West's high culture keeps playing in the sandbox of postmodern irrationalism — in which there is "your truth" and "my truth" but nothing such as "the truth" — the West will be unable to defend itself. Why? Because the West won't be able to give reasons why its commitments to civility, tolerance, human rights and the rule of law are worth defending.

A Western world stripped of convictions about the truths that make Western civilization possible cannot make a useful contribution to a genuine dialogue of civilizations, for any such dialogue must be based on a shared understanding that human beings can, however imperfectly, come to know the truth of things.

The abandonment of the notion of objective truths that can be know through rational inquiry will be the death of Western Civilization -- either through internal decay or external attack. The Pope's challenge to the West is to recover a precious nugget that underlies the Western tradition -- indeed, that is fundamental to the notion that there are unalienable rights that each of us has based upon our humanity. Will we in the West accept that challenge, even as we challenge the Islamic world to balance faith with rationality in an effort to bring respect for every human person into a religion that has been tinged with barbarism for far too long?

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

Only through prayer can the evil that is jihadi Islam be overcome. This is a spiritual war, not just a military one.

As such, I'd like to encourage folks to participate in this effort.

When Muslims begin the holy month of Ramadan this weekend, Christians worldwide will be praying along with them. But Muslims may not welcome the support. In a campaign called the “30 Days Muslim Prayer Focus,” Christians will be asking God to help Muslims accept Jesus.

The project is organized by a loose association of evangelical groups that include Youth With A Mission, which works in about 150 countries. In the U.S., the National Association of Evangelicals is asking the thousands of churches and ministries it represents to participate.

Lynn Green, international chairman of Youth With A Mission, said organizers chose Ramadan because it is a time when Muslims pray for God’s acceptance and guidance and “we add our prayers to theirs,” Green said. “We are praying they really know God.”

And for them to know God, it is clear that they must reject the false teachings of Mohammad that are contained in the Quran.

To learn more about 30 Days of Prayer for the Muslim World, click here. Their prayer booklet may be viewed and downloaded by clicking here. And you can subscribe to their prayer email list, click here.

Let's do our best as Christians to bring Muslims to the True Living Word of God -- Jesus. It is the best way to break the power of jihadi islam.

Posted by: Greg at 07:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

And that means that all of us believers arenÂ’t allowed to express ourselves where they might possibly be exposed to ideas and concepts that they reject. And that especially goes for politicians.

An atheist civil rights organization on Tuesday charged that a partisan campaign ad filmed in a Tennessee Baptist church sends a “divisive” message and is “religionizing” important public policy issues.

The television commercial was filmed on behalf of Democratic candidate Harold Ford, Jr. who is running against Republican Bob Corker.

“To our knowledge, this is the first time a partisan political ad has been produced using the backdrop of a church,” said Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists. “It’s part of a larger and disturbing trend where candidates are invoking religion in order to woo constituencies and win elections.”

Ms. Johnson added that by “playing the religion card,” candidates like Mr. Ford were marginalizing and excluding millions of Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and other nonbelievers.

Dave Silverman, communications director for American Atheists, said that Mr. Ford’s ad "is more than a simple statement of personal beliefs. It’s pandering, and it raises serious questions about a candidate who does something like this would represent all of the people in his state if elected, or uphold the separation of church and state.”

So it is really simple – the overwhelming majority of Americans just need to shut up so as not to offend an obnoxious and intolerant minority that is too insecure in its non-belief to risk being exposed to contrary views. If they don’t believe it, we aren’t allowed to talk about it publicly.

But we will not be silent, because they are not the only Americans with civil rights.

Posted by: Greg at 11:22 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Oh shit! ambien canada and cheap ambien . Try this!

Posted by: ambien canada at Mon Jan 26 15:59:21 2009 (3nUYS)

2 Holy Jesus! ambien sleep medication like buy ambien overnight delivery . Thanks for the laugh!

Posted by: ambien sleep medication at Mon Feb 2 13:31:29 2009 (yH6RE)

3 I know it! ambien dosage more than cheap generic ambien . Thanks everyone for the appreciation!

Posted by: ambien dosage at Tue Feb 3 20:17:40 2009 (0zGB7)

4 comment5, ultram, > ,

Posted by: tramadol at Mon Feb 9 20:55:16 2009 (ZK1lq)

5 You great webmaster! nexium 40mg lexapro cost order zithromax purchase lipitor buy cheap paxil Very well presented.

Posted by: Enter at Tue Feb 10 22:23:43 2009 (fPigl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Will all the “good Muslims” who follow “true Islam” condemn this cold-blooded murder as incompatible with the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad?

Somali Christian sources report that Ali Mustaf Maka'il, a 22-year-old college student and cloth merchant, who converted from Islam to Christianity eleven months ago, was shot and killed in the Manabolyo quarter of Mogadishu on September 7.

According to a report from The Barnabas Fund, quoting a Christian source inside Somalia, the gunman was loyal to the Union of Islamic Courts (ICU), the Islamist organization that took power in Mogadishu in early June 2006 and now controls much of southern Somalia.

The report states: "The gunman shot Ali in the back after he refused to join a crowd chanting Qur'an verses in honor of the lunar eclipse. (Solar and lunar eclipses are significant in Islam and are accompanied by special congregational prayers.) The ICU confiscated his body for 24 hours before delivering it to the grieving family."

The Barnabas Fund says: "It seems that under the new Islamist rulers, who include hard-line jihadi elements, the tragic history of persecution and martyrdom for Somalia's tiny Christian community is set to continue and most likely to worsen."

The group reports that in July 2006 there were unconfirmed reports that three Christians had been shot and killed by Islamists as they returned home from a prayer meeting.

It adds: "In October 2005 an evangelist and house church leader, Osman Sheik Ahmed, was shot dead by Islamist radicals. Children of Christian Somali refugees in Kenya have been kidnapped by Muslim relatives and taken to Islamic institutions in Somalia for 'rehabilitation.' "

The Barnabas Fund explains that the leader of the ICU, Hassan Dahir Aweys, promised to implement shari'a in all areas he controls.

"According to shari'a, apostates (those who leave Islam for another religion), must be killed. ICU leaders have even threatened to kill as apostates Muslims who are lax in their prayers, claiming this is commanded by shari'a. Several Muslims have been publicly flogged for drug related offences since the ICU took control."

IÂ’m not asking for anything outrageous, am I? Merely a statement by prominent Islamic leaders that Islam respects the free conscience of every man, woman, and child, and that each person has the right to follow their conscience in religious matters, even if that means they reject Islam and take up another faith.

H/T Jawa Report

Posted by: Greg at 11:19 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

Of course not, even though MadonnaÂ’s blasphemous show is at least as insulting towards Christianity as any of the Danish cartoons or papal quotes were towards Islam.

The NBC television network is still making up its mind about whether it will allow pop star Madonna to stage a mock crucifixion on its airwaves as part of her upcoming prime-time concert special.

The 48-year-old entertainer has made the crucifixion stunt, in which she performs while suspended on a giant cross wearing a crown of thorns, a centerpiece of her global "Confessions" tour.

Her stage act drew storms of protest from the Roman Catholic Church and Russian Orthodox Church during recent performances in Rome and Moscow, with church leaders condemning the mock crucifixion as blasphemy.

But executives at NBC, owned by the General Electric Co. will wait for makers of her concert special to submit the production for review before deciding whether to allow the mock crucifixion to air.

If this were something offensive to Muslims, would the network even consider broadcasting it? We already know the answer, based on NBC’s failure to show the Danish cartoons earlier this year out of “sensitivity” to Islamic dogma. That there would be a question in this case is outrageous.

On the other hand, maybe the problem is that they know that Christians aren’t going to blow up their television stations or behead their employees – Muslims will.

Posted by: Greg at 11:18 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

About a diference that makes all the difference.

It seems pretty clear which is the true religion of peace.

Posted by: Greg at 10:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Is Islam the religious face of Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Raymond Kraft looks at the DSM-IV definition of that personality disorder and notes that common Islamic behavior fits precisely point for point with the definition of that disorder.

Muslims feel free to call Jews "apes and pigs," they feel free to march in the streets calling for "Death to America," the Great Satan, they feel free to riot across France, burning thousands of cars and homes and businesses, for weeks. They feel free to execute homosexuals for their homosexuality, and send women to prison for the crime, or sin, of having been raped, or stone them for actual or suspected adultery. But at the slightest suggestion that they, or Islam, or the Prophet, are any less perfect than they claim to be, they erupt in fury and violence, the behavior of a culture fixated at the emotional level of a narcissistic four-year-old who throws a screaming tantrum every time he does not get precisely what his childish little heart desires.

With this thought in mind I turned to the Diagnostic Statistical Manual-IV (DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association, to the section on Narcissistic Personality Disorder. And now I am going to offend Islam, again. For the tantrums of Islam that we see in every day's news match precisely all of the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

"Narcissistic Personality Disorder: A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

(1) Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).

The Islamic world of today has precisely this grandiose and delusional sense of self-importance, as it declares Islam to be the cure for all the world's ills, despite the rather obvious fact that where militant Islam is dominant, as with the Taliban in Afghanistan, society regresses into barbarity. Each day I open the paper to see that the Religion of Peace has slaughtered another hundred Iraqis in Iraq, or that, having failed to develop anything even vaguely resembling a self-sustaining economy and destroying most of what was left to the Palestinians by the Israelis when they withdrew, Hamas in Gaza cannot even pay the salaries of its own employees and must go about panhandling the "international community" for enough money to feed its people, dependant on the charity of its enemies. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, rattling his nuclear saber, threatening the annihilation of Israel and proclaiming that Iran is better suited than America to "lead the world," blithely avoids the fact that the prosperity of Iran, and the populist largesse it allows him to shower on the Iranian people, and his own derivative sense of power and purpose, largely depend on the sale of Iran's petroleum to the Western countries he despises.

The Islam of today does not export science, or literature, or music, or art, or charity, or humanitarianism, or freedom. Islam has produced no Einsteins, no Da Vincis, no Beethovens, no Churchills or Franklin D. Roosevelts, no Declarations of Human Rights, no Mother Theresas. Islam today exports oil, and terror.

Yet Islam wallows in the self-inflicted delusion that it is the center of the world and the quintessence of civilization.

(2) Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success.

The Islamic Jihad of today is rather publicly preoccupied with the fantasy that it will destroy Israel and the rest of Western Civilization, and usher in an eternal Fourth Reich of Theocratic Islamic Totalitarianism, fulfilling the word of the Prophet at Koran 9:33 - "He it is who hath sent His Apostle with the Guidance and a religion of truth, that he may make it victorious over every other religion..."

(3) Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

Islam from its inception has taught that it is "Special," and that Muslims should associate insofar as possible only with other Muslims. As the Prophet said in Koran 5:60, 76: "O you who believe! Take not Jews and Christians as friends. They are but one another's friends. If any one of you taketh them for his friends, he surely is one of them! God will not guide the evil doers...Infidels now are they who say, 'God is the Messiah, the Son of Mary;' for the Messiah said, 'O children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' Whosoever shall join other gods with God, God shall forbid him the Garden, and his abode shall be the Fire; and the wicked shall have no helpers..."

Indeed, "Specialness," the instant and effortless "Specialness" that does not come from achievement or accomplishment, or from humanitarian service, but merely from the act of belief in the Prophet and in Islam, is the great and terrible seduction of fundamentalist Islam, and those who become martyrs, who commit suicide and murder, killing Infidels (who are not "Special," because they are not Believers), achieve the greatest of all possible "Specialness" in the eyes of Allah and in the annals of Islam and are greatly rewarded in Paradise.

Islam, unique among the world's religions, is the only religion which confers its highest accolade of "Specialness" upon those who murder others and themselves, acts which other religions call "sins." Christianity and Judaism honor those who minister to others. Islam honors those who kill. In the world of militant Islam, only Muslims are Special, and among Muslims, the most Special people of all are its mass murderers, who in any other culture would be condemned to prison or death or ignominy as mass murderers.

(4) Requires excessive admiration.

This is a corollary of Islam's pathological obsession with its "Specialness" and the inferiority of those who are Unbelievers, those who follow any other religious faith, or no faith at all. When Islam is insufficiently admired (or, God forbid, critiqued) by those it is attempting to kill, enslave, dominate, and subjugate, Muslims around the world riot and protest that they have been offended and demand apologies. The stance of Islam toward the West is, We can slaughter you, but you cannot criticize us. We can call you pigs and apes and infidels worthy only of death and hell, but you must admire us.

(5) Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or compliance with his or her expectations.

Throughout Europe, and in other non-Muslim countries, Islamic immigrants and communities expect special treatment. They expect respect for their demands to be governed by Sharia, rather than by the laws of the countries to which they have immigrated. They do not want to assimilate into the cultures and societies into which they have come, rather, they demand that France, Denmark, Germany, England, and all other Western nations that now have large Muslim communities, accommodate them. Islam sees itself as the defining force of every community and culture and country into which it spreads. It is intolerant of all others, and it intends, in time, to displace and then replace all others. Islam dreams of a world in which there is no East and West, no Judaism, no Christianity, no Hinduism, no Buddhism, no Agnostics and no Atheists, only Islam. This is what the Prophet has promised, and to this it is entitled.

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said yesterday" "[Muslim nations] should have tanks, warplanes, warships, guns and missiles...Yes, they need to have nuclear weapons too, because only with the possession of such would their enemies be deterred from attacking them...Well, if you allow Israel to have them, why should the others not have them too?"

He ignores, of course, the fact that Islam has enemies only because it has declared war on everyone else. If Islam were in truth a religion of peace, it would have no enemies, and it would need no weapons.

But they are Special. They are entitled.

(6) Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.

Islam has been, for years or decades now, taking advantage of the immigration policies and public generosity of Europe, America, Canada, Australia, in order to achieve its own ambitions of global domination, as explicitly explained in The Management of Savagery by Abu Bakr Naji. Islam and Muslims, as a cultural trait, take every possible advantage they can of everyone they can, including other Muslims. As a Muslim client once explained to me, "We are different from you Americans. When you make a deal, you make a contract, that's it. You make a contract, then you do it. With us Muslims, a contract is just for today, and tomorrow it is the place to begin negotiating again." Another, an Iranian with a PhD in pharmacology, came to California to escape the purges of the Khomeini revolution in Iran after the Shah was deposed. Speaking no English, he went to work in a restaurant owned by two of his nephews, doing whatever needed to be done, prep, cooking, cleaning, bussing. They paid him minimum wage for forty hours a week, although they never actually paid him in full, and required him to work from opening to closing every day, seven days a week, more than a hundred hours a week. He was allowed to sleep on the floor in the store room, and he was not allowed to leave. In other words, they made their uncle their slave. He escaped, and with an Iranian acquaintance to translate went to the Labor Commission to file a complaint for unpaid wages, and after he returned his nephews beat him nearly to death. He wanted to know if he could sue them. I replied that he could, but asked what they would do to him if he did. He answered, "They will kill me."

(7) Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

Lack of empathy - indifference to the emotions and feelings, the pain and suffering, of others, is also a defining trait of psychopaths, "...predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they cold-bloodedly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt." (Hare, Robert D., Psychopaths: New Trends in Research, The Harvard Mental Health Letter, September 1995).

This narcissistic psychopathy is amply on display in the embrace of terrorism by militant Islam. Those who have empathy for the emotions, feelings, grief, pain and suffering, for the lives of others, do not blow up nightclubs filled with vacationers in Egypt or Bali, wedding parties in Jordan, schools full of children in Beslan, Russia, trains filled with commuters in India and Spain and England, buses, synagogues, banks, and consulates in Turkey, police recruits and shoppers in Iraq, cafes in Israel, and they do not plot for years to fly airliners full of innocent passengers into the World Trade Center in New York, killing thousands of people from dozens of countries, Muslim and Infidel alike. They do not decapitate Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg on TV.

If Islamic terror were not hiding behind the Mosque and the Koran, and if America and Europe were not intellectually blinded by its camouflage of religion, and its outspoken protestations of "offense" at every criticism, and by our own uncritical and indiscriminating Liberalism, which is a sort of inverted Nihilism (while the Nihilist approves of nothing, the Progressive Liberal approves of everything except rational discrimination between good and bad), America and Europe would not hesitate to call these terrorists and their allies what they are, pre-meditated mass murderers, and the Jihad, the Global Intifada, what it is - a world-wide conspiracy to commit mass murder, serial murder, in the relentless narcissistic pursuit of religio-political power.

( Is often envious of others, or believes that others are envious of him or her.

It is probable that one of the driving forces underlying the Jihad, the Global Intifada, perhaps the most powerful and dangerous one, is jealousy, or envy, the unspoken, perhaps unrecognized, inarticulate envy of many Muslims who resent Israel and the West for their success, which contrasts badly with the failures of much of the Islamic world. The Islamic world should (according to Islam) be most greatly blessed by Allah, it should dominate the globe, and the greater achievements and prosperity of the West presents a stark challenge, a desperate cognitive dissonance, to the ideology of Islamic perfection, supremacy, Specialness. To the narcissist who seeks Specialness above all else, to compensate for his lack of real accomplishment, those who achieve what he has not, or will not, or cannot, are hateful. He despises them, because they become a mirror in which he sees himself for what he is, or what he is not, but cannot admit to being or not being.

A mirror which must be broken.

(9) Shows arrogant, haughty behavior or attitudes.

The Islam of Jihad, the Islam of the Global Intifada, displays absolute arrogance. This Islam assumes that it is privileged to attack every continent, and any nation, killing people all over the world, burning churches and synagogues and temples, killing Christians and Jews and Hindus merely because they are not Muslims, without remorse, without apology, killing Muslims by the thousands to destabilize Iraq to prevent Iraq from becoming a peaceful and prosperous democracy friendly to the West. Then in the next moment Islam takes extreme offense at any criticism or disparagement of Islam, demonstrating, rioting, calling for retractions and apologies, disdaining all other political traditions and religious faiths as illegitimate. Its arrogance knows no limitations. It is infinite.

Islam is in desperate need of soul-searching, of self-reflection, of reality. Islam needs a long hard look in the mirror. Islam needs to see itself as others see it, not merely as it sees itself.

I wonÂ’t go so far as to argue that you have to be crazy to follow Islam, but it seems pretty clear that Islam itself displays serious elements of psychopathology. Can it regain (if not gain for the first time) its sanity and become a healthy part of human culture and the world of spirituality?

And as if to prove the point made above, there is this little gem coming out of Libya.

The elder son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has called on Pope Benedict XVI to convert to Islam immediately, dismissing last week's apology from the pontiff for offending Muslims.

"If this person were really someone reasonable, he would not agree to remain at his post one minute, but would convert to Islam immediately," Mohammed Gaddafi told an awards ceremony on Monday evening for an international competition to memorise the Qur'an.

"We say to the pope - whether you apologise or not is irrelevant, as apologies make no difference to us."

Gaddafi junior also hit out at "those Muslims who look for comfort in the words of a non-Muslim".

He said Muslims "should not look for charity from the infidel... but should fight Islam's enemies who attack the faith and the Prophet Muhammad".

Yeah – like that’s gonna happen.

Posted by: Greg at 09:22 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 2555 words, total size 16 kb.

1

hello madam/sir

Your letter is full of hate and dislike, it's your opinion. I want to ask you few questions, just to understand you better, if you don't mind?

what you mean by Islam?....the relegion itself or people? because Islam came as a continuity of judism,christianity (you must believe in Jesus and Mosas,to be muslim)....if you mean muslim people,yes, since many years ago,after they stop follow strictly the islamic rules,they become weaker and less respected. e.g

I will give you some of prophet Mohamed's advice when he sent his followers to distripute islam...

-No one should be forced to inter this relegion.

-No fights, unless someone force you to defend yourself.

-never cut a tree,destroy buliding, or hurt someone.

this is what I believe my relegion is.....please...share with me your opinion.

thanks

 

Posted by: Ahmed at Sat Jan 13 19:39:25 2007 (sEd+W)

2 Sorry, Ahmed, but I reject your comments. Islam is not a continuation f Judaim and Christianity -- indeed, it requires that its followers reject essential elements of both the old and New Covenants between God and His People. The Muslim fight to steal the Promised Land from the Jews is an example of the rejection of the former, and the blasphemous rejection of the divinity of Jesus Christ shows its rejection of the latter. Indeed, said rejections lead me inexorably to the conclusion that Islam is a counterfeit inspired by some spiritual force other than God -- I'll let you take that assertion to its logical extension.

And as for your statements about the instructions of Mohammad, I cannot help but notice that they were violated even in his time -- and even by Mohammad himself. They have been repeatedly violated throughout Islamic history. This leads me to conclude that islam is not the peaceful, respectful religion you claim, and that such assertions of Islam's peaceful, respectful nature are falsehoods -- but i will refrain from deciding if they are spread knowingly or not by those who seek to propagate them.

Please recognize and embrace this fundamental spiritual truth, that you might have eternal life:

There is no God but God, and Jesus Christ is his only begotten Son.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jan 14 06:12:50 2007 (6br+E)

3 None of which is to say, however, that the average Muslim is not a decent person with a high sense of personal morality. Rather, it is to note that Islam as a faith is fundamentally flawed -- precisely the opposite of the position you take, Ahmed.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jan 14 06:25:19 2007 (6br+E)

4 Islam is indeed a continuation of Judaism and Christianity despite what many people have chosen to believe. The only problem with modern Judaism and modern Christianity is that they have somehow strayed from the true teachings of the religion. As it has now been discovered by CHRISTIAN scholars, the original content of the bible did not contain the word trinity nor did it contain the fantasy that Jesus is the son of God. So for that view of yours I would advise you to research your own religion much more carefully. As for the rest of your preposterous allegations I would advise you to research Islam a lot more carefully. Granted that Muslims of today tend to be far from perfect, it is wrong of you or indeed anybody (even me) to stereotype anyone. Muslims of today have strayed from Islam's fundamental beliefs. That is a fact. However, to judge Islam by that is not only wrong it is ignorant. People make mistakes as did Adolph Hitler who you may remember was a Christian. The true teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) have not been contradicted but taken out of context or misinterpreted. Islam is indeed a religion that does not condone violence unless when protecting Islam or yourself. It is not Islam that exports oil or terror, it is people. To claim that America or Britain are responsible for anything less than mass murder is ridiculous. However, that is another issue completely. Jihad exists in Islam only as a way to die for ones religion, not as Al-Qaeda believe to murder for it. Suicide is the only guaranteed way to Hell whether that’s through suicide bombing or any other means. To judge Islam right now is the equivalent of judging Christianity at the time of the Crusades. At that time Islamic countries were the more cultured and the Christians were seen as uncultured. Indeed before Muslims took over, Europe was seen as a place with nothing to offer. It was Muslims who brought knowledge and culture to Europe. Even Oxford University was started by gaining knowledge and books from these Muslims. To say that we are “stealing” the Promised Land from the Israelis shows a lack of understanding of the situation in the Middle East. Israel was granted as a small state initially. However, it illegally took over most of the land it now occupies. It did originally belong to Muslims. When it did people of all religion were welcomed not just Muslims. Muslims have not declared war on anyone but those that declare war on Islam. You stated that, “If Islam were in truth a religion of peace, it would have no enemies,”, In that case we can say that Gandhi also had no enemies as he was a man of peace, ignoring the fact that he was shot by someone that I am presuming was not a friend. Humans will be humans irregardless of religion. The stories you tell of bad Muslims I could also relate to you the same stories about Christians, or Jews, or Hindus, etc. Having read your article I find that your views hate filled and baseless. I would advise to read up on Islam or check your sources. “La-Illah-Ha-Illullahhu-Muhammadur-Rasulluah” “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad (PBUH) is his messenger” Saif Choudhry

Posted by: Saif Choudhry at Sun May 13 15:53:22 2007 (wTxTD)

5 No, Saif -- not when Islam denies the essential element of Christianity, namely the divinity of Jesus Christ. Nor when the Quran calls for killing Jews.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 14 11:48:28 2007 (mG8tM)

6 You are of course forgetting the fact that the original untampered version of the bible NEVER states that Jesus was the son of God nor does it even mention or refer to the so called "Holy Trinity". This is not something I am fabricating, it is in fact confirmed by Christian scholars that are called on to assess these scripts. The Qu'ran does not call for the killing of Jews. You are of course, again, misinterpreting verses of the Qu'ran. These sort of lies are what cause tension between religions and people. I would again ask you to check your sources on both Christianity and Islam. Saif Choudhry

Posted by: Saif Choudhry at Mon May 14 13:54:57 2007 (wTxTD)

7 Just found a quote you might like from the Qu'ran; 2:62 "VERILY, those who have attained to faith [in this divine writ], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians -all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds-shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve." This quote states that in Islam, even Jews and Christians can enter heaven. This contradicts your view that the Qu'ran calls for the killing of them. No misquotations here. Saif Choudhry

Posted by: Saif Choudhry at Mon May 14 14:20:39 2007 (wTxTD)

8 Please quit coming here and lying about my Lord and Savior. But then again, your stock in trade appears to be Islamo-lies.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 14 15:02:21 2007 (/MTqO)

9 Your quote above states that there is only one God and that is God. Then why is it that you refer to Jesus as your Lord. You seem to be contradicting yourself in order to spread propaganda. From the way you are talking it also seems you are yourself suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. You are following all the characteristics described above. I will not be so narrow minded as you were and diagnose the whole of Christian society with your problems. It forbids such behaviour in Islam...maybe you should read up on it... Saif Choudhry

Posted by: Saif Choudhry at Mon May 14 16:10:02 2007 (xEYAU)

10 Saif -- Might I introduce you to a very basic part of scriptures -- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And lest you question that this refers to Jesus, let me point you to this later verse from the same chapter -- "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." So the Word was, in fact, God -- and the Word took on flesh and dwelt among us as a man. And that man was Jesus. So since you deny the divinity of Christ, nothing else your false religion has to say particularly matters -- except to the degree that it teaches teh murder of non-believers, and acts to see it carried out today.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 14 22:49:02 2007 (MmOwl)

11 You keep saying things such as Islam asks you to kill non-believers indiscriminately when you know yourself it is not true otherwise you would have backed yourself with words. In the Qu’ran it states: “Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them.” This is a quote from the Qu’ran. It only allows you to harm those that harm you or your religion. You are most definitely showing traits of Narcissistic Personality Disorder as described above. Here are some of the characteristics I identified: (7) Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others. You showed this when you said, "Sorry, Ahmed, but I reject your comments." without showing any respect for his religion or belief. Free speech is good but not at the cost of respect. If you feel something that is likely to upset people on a large scale (particularly if your views are baseless and narrow minded such as yours)it is better to keep them to yourself. ( Is often envious of others, or believes that others are envious of him or her. You showed this trait when you claimed, "But then again, your stock in trade appears to be Islamo-lies." This is pure and simple something you said in order to spread propaganda against people of the Muslim faith. What I said was completely 100% correct. However, if I did do something wrong it is on my conscience. It is not right for you to blame the whole of the Islamic society for my problems. (9) Shows arrogant, haughty behaviour or attitudes. One of the times you showed this was when you stated, “So since you deny the divinity of Christ, nothing else your false religion has to say particularly matters…” You seem to be purposefully saying things in order to stir the pot and cause fall outs between religions and people. I would see a psychiatrist if I were you. Saif Choudhry

Posted by: Saif Choudhry at Tue May 15 08:35:35 2007 (xEYAU)

12 I'm sorry -- I have no empathy for those who follow a counterfeit religion inspired by Satan. And trust me, I'm not envious of you or anyone else who follows the path of darkness rather than that of light. Lastly, since your religion denies the central truth of Christianity, nothing else it has to say about being a continuation of the Christian faith matters because it is a demonstrable falsehood.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue May 15 09:22:08 2007 (k3KX3)

13 What's wrong? You only leave up messages you can defend? Fair enough, delete this message too and live in ignorance. There's not alot I can do about it. P.S. If you were raised in a Muslim country, you'd be here defending Islam! Ironic, isn't it?

Posted by: serotonin_wraith at Wed Jul 11 04:37:39 2007 (AdNmH)

14 What are you talking about?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jul 11 04:54:42 2007 (UlWia)

15 You deleting my other message. Play innocent if you like. Lie if you like. That's obeying the Bible, isn't it? Lying? Whatever you say, we both know what you've done. I'll leave it at that and let you say you don't have a clue what's going on, as I'm sure you will.

Posted by: serotonin_wraith at Wed Jul 11 07:50:52 2007 (AdNmH)

16 Given that I got hit with over 200 comment spam messages last night, it is possible that your message got swept away by the despamming blacklist during my cleanup activities this morning. Given that much of the comment spam was drug-related, it is possible that serotonin triggered something during the clean-up. I'll go into the blacklist and check, and fix the problem by removing that term if it is there. If you would care to repost the comment, it would be welcome.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jul 11 08:01:29 2007 (UlWia)

17 You selectively chose to criticize Islam and Muslims, implicitly romanticizing the West and the Western culture. I must say to you that a criminal and oppressive Western gang just gave birth to a mad and crazy Muslim gang. Congratulations to mankind! You are yourself portraying the same symptoms of the illness you are talking about. You speak with an unusual degree of self-righteousness, selectivity, bigotry, and ideological bias. When Oppression and universal injustice becomes the rule rather than the exception, what do you expect? Muslims for centuries have been colonialized, robbed, genocided, minimized and that is why they immigrated to the west in the first place desperately seeking a better life. Their fanaticism is no more than an allergy reaction to a disease that started its epidemic at the West. You lack the courage and decency, and perhaps the knowledge, to point out the horrendous acts of the colonial and capitalist greed of the Western expansion which had its roots in the crusaders who used religion as a sham to rob the Muslims in the East in the medieval times. Those waves of Western expansion which revived again around the middle of the last millennium and led first by the kings and queens of Spain, England, France, and the Dutch were responsible for the killing of 19 million Indians in the Americas, and the disappearance of about 50 millions of blacks from Africa. The recent Colonial history of Europe to the Middle East for the past two centuries, and many places in Africa and South East Asia is nothing less to mention. The modern involvement of the CIA plotting and conspiring against the developing countries in South East Asia, South America, Africa, and the Middle East which resulted in the death of millions who resisted the corporatist world governments are all no sins to you, and you come here with your twisted scientific seemingly objective tone of reason to say that Muslim know nothing about peace, that they are envious of the West and the Western achievements, that they take advantage of the laws and liberties extended to them by the generous West! Very well done Mr. Psychiatrist! Muslim are trying to break the mirror which reminds them of their misery, but that is a natural reaction and a self-preservation mechanism, so what is your objective excuse to being ignorant of history and the roots of all evil? Maybe you do not know better and I ask the mighty power to give you enlightenment as I celebrate not to see a soul in darkness and ignorance. I wish you and the rest of mankind happiness and wellbeing. I truly do. I would hope that you could have more balanced and symmetric views of the world around you. What you are saying is no different from what is being pronounced in the mainstream media, the same media which power vetoed the rest of the world when they came to criticize Israel, the same media which fabricated evidence and told lies to go to war and destroy a whole country, placing its greedy contractors into the festival of billions of dollars in pure profit. The world is a mess Mr. Psychiatrist and what you see is evil born out of a bigger evil. Only when humanity is restored to its honor bestowed by the creator, one could only point the finger and judge. The sad historic perspective which has always been and will always be is that it is much easier and more satisfying to blame the victim when the aggressor is the mighty one. What you see today is two wrongs trying to be right, so whom to blame if you want to be fair?

Posted by: Truthseeker at Sat Mar 8 09:13:57 2008 (/7wOS)

18 Good God! What a load of crap! But since you want to place the blame where it belongs, let's go back to the very roots of islam. From its very inception it has been about doing violence to those who dare to believe differently. From the day of the false prophet Muhammad, Islam has marginalized all who will not accept its perverse message. Remember -- the Crusades were nothing but a reaction to Islamic expansion by force into Christian lands. I'm well aware of the faults of Western society -- but I prefer that society, warts and all, to the oppression and human rights violations that are implicit in Islam!

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Mar 8 16:11:20 2008 (yv1Pz)

19 I found this topic in the friend message What it mean ? http://outletexp.6te.net/william-55/map.html william sonoma outlet in san francisco william sonoma outlet in san francisco william sonoma outlet in san francisco Would you like to descend upon and gab approximately trend with me? I'll be hosting my blue ribbon-still FW online fash bullshit flirt Friday at 12pm, answering any questions you muscle bring into the world on till the cows come homey side pizazz conundrums, where to come across any choosy items, what to bore stable items with, or equanimous objective to talk approximately the crap that makes us swoon.

Posted by: Rapimitty at Sun Jan 4 10:12:33 2009 (M1sYI)

20 Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important. http://sguqitiwi.11gb.com/jim-carreys-depression/depression-germany-great.html - depression germany great http://riwuwicsyro.11gb.com/cns-depression/hypnotism-for-anxiety-disorders.html - hypnotism for anxiety disorders http://witupgusew.11gb.com/avoid-depression-food/social-anxiety-causes.html - social anxiety causes http://tupapoow.11gb.com/wellbutrin-300mg-xl/depression-and-sleep-disorders.html - depression and sleep disorders

Posted by: Jules at Fri Nov 13 01:01:00 2009 (DAADg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Anne Applebaum says it better than I could in her column in Slate & the Washington Post.

But we can all unite in our support for freedom of speech—surely the pope is allowed to quote medieval texts—and of the press. And we can also unite—loudly—in our condemnation of violent, unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies, and elderly nuns. By "we" I mean here the White House, the Vatican, the German Greens, the French Foreign Ministry, NATO, Greenpeace, Le Monde, and Fox News. Western institutions of the left, the right, and everything in between. True, these principles sound pretty elementary—"we're pro-free speech and anti-gratuitous violence"—but in the days since the pope's sermon, I don't feel that I've heard them defended in anything like a unanimous chorus. A lot more time has been spent analyzing what the pontiff meant to say, or should have said, or ought to have said if he had been given better advice.

All of which is simply beside the point, since nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism, and hatred that pours out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day of the week all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it's time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews, and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn't the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain's chief rabbi, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them—simultaneously. Equally, I see no reason why Swedish social democrats, British conservatives, and Dutch liberals couldn't occasionally forget their admittedly deep differences and agree unanimously that the practices of female circumcision and forced child marriage are totally unacceptable, whether in Somalia or Stockholm. Surely on this issue they all agree.

Maybe it's a pipe dream: The day when the White House and Greenpeace can issue a joint statement is distant indeed. But if stray comments by Western leaders—not to mention Western films, books, cartoons, traditions, ethics, and values—are going to inspire violence on a regular basis, I don't feel that it's asking too much for the West to quit saying sorry and remain united, occasionally, in its own defense. The fanatics attacking the pope already limit the right to free speech among their own followers. I don't see why we should allow them to limit our right to free speech, too.

It shouldn’t be difficult – but too many voices in the West would rather dhimmify than fight.

Posted by: Greg at 09:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

In the midst of a great analysis of Pope Benedict XVI's recent speech and the barbaric reaction of Muslims to an old quote, there comes this observation on the lack of reciprocity in the treatment of religious believers between the West and the Islamic world.

Desire for a more muscular stance, however, has been building among Catholics around the world for some time. In part, it has been driven by persecution of Christians in the Islamic world, like the murder of an Italian missionary, the Rev. Andrea Santoro, in Trabzon, Turkey, in February. A 16-year-old Turk fired two bullets into Father Santoro, shouting “God is great.” But perhaps the greatest driving force has been the frustrations over reciprocity. To take one oft-cited example, while Saudis contributed tens of millions of dollars to build Europe’s largest mosque in Rome, Christians cannot build churches in Saudi Arabia. Priests in Saudi Arabia cannot leave oil-industry compounds or embassy grounds without fear of reprisals from the mutawa, the religious police. The bishop of the region recently described the situation as “reminiscent of the catacombs.”

When will we demand religious freedom for Christians in every land, or impose islamic-style restrictions on the religious freedom of Muslims in the West?

Posted by: Boyo at 10:07 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

Could this be a sign of an end to the mother of all divisions within Christianity -- the split between Eastern and Western Christianity that began as much over such non-issues as whether priests should have beards and whether the bread for communion should be leavened or not as it did over the great theological issues of the day.

Top Roman Catholic and Orthodox dignitaries declared Monday that the time has come to close the ages-old rifts between the ancient branches of Christianity and bring East and West closer together.

Representing the world's 1.1 billion Catholics and more than 250 million Christian Orthodox, sixty bishops, metropolitans and cardinals — 30 from each side — convened in the Serbian capital Belgrade for a renewed "theological" dialogue while acknowledging that much wider issues are involved.

"East and West have been estranged from each other since the 11th century," said Orthodox Metropolitan John Zizioulas, referring to the historic schism in 1054 when the spiritual leaders in the Vatican and in Constantinople — now Istanbul, Turkey — severed ties over the rising influence of the papacy.

That split was sealed then with an exchange of anathemas — spiritual repudiations, which were lifted in the 20th century but only with halting progress toward restoring bonds.

"We experience in our time that European nations unite and create one family," he said. "It is time to recover the ancient unity. ... East and West meet now not only on the theological level, but also on the political level."

As Christians around the world face the common threat of jihadi Islam, it is time for us unite and put such disunity firmly in the past. May God grant that it be so!

Posted by: Greg at 01:01 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

We've heard a lot lately, in response to the words of Pope Benedict XVI in quoteing a long-dead Byzantine emperor, that jihad is not about holy war, that it is only defensive warfare, and that Islam was not spread by force. In light of these claims, I think it is important to repost this piece from November 2005. Thanks to Teresa from NoisyRoom for reminding of it and linking to it.

We always hear about the evil of the Crusades and the righteous indignation of Muslims over a series of wars that provide a poor witness to the Gospel. However, was Islam an innocent victim, or were the crusades a response to a long series of Muslim religious conquest of Christian lands and oppression of Christian believers?

Take a look at the timeline and decide. I'll put Muslim jihad against Christian lands in bold, and Christian assaults on Islamic lands in italics.

630 Two years before Muhammad’s death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting “agreements” from northern tribes. They could enjoy the “privilege” of living under Islamic “protection” (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).

This tax sets the stage for MuhammadÂ’s and the later CaliphsÂ’ policies. If the attacked city or region did not want to convert to Islam, then they paid a jizya tax. If they converted, then they paid a zakat tax. Either way, money flowed back to the Islamic treasury in Arabia or to the local Muslim governor.

632-634 Under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr the Muslim Crusaders reconquer and sometimes conquer for the first time the polytheists of Arabia. These Arab polytheists had to convert to Islam or die. They did not have the choice of remaining in their faith and paying a tax. Islam does not allow for religious freedom.

633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al-Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616-17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in todayÂ’s Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034-35).

634 At the Battle of Yarmuk in Syria the Muslim Crusaders defeat the Byzantines. Today Osama bin Laden draws inspiration from the defeat, and especially from an anecdote about Khalid al-Walid. An unnamed Muslim remarks: “The Romans are so numerous and the Muslims so few.” To this Khalid retorts: “How few are the Romans, and how many the Muslims! Armies become numerous only with victory and few only with defeat, not by the number of men. By God, I would love it . . . if the enemy were twice as many” (Tabari, 11:94 / 2095). Osama bin Ladin quotes Khalid and says that his fighters love death more than we in the West love life. This philosophy of death probably comes from a verse like Sura 2:96. Muhammad assesses the Jews: “[Prophet], you are sure to find them [the Jews] clinging to life more eagerly than any other people, even polytheists” (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004; first insertion in brackets is Haleem’s; the second mine).

634-644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus

636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636)

638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

638-650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

639-642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

643-707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

644-650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.

656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son-in-law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophetÂ’s daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, MuhammadÂ’s wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging UthmanÂ’s assassination. AliÂ’s partisans win.

657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali

661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; AliÂ’s supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.

661-680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus

673-678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire

680 Massacre of Hussein (MuhammadÂ’s grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.

691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after MuhammadÂ’s death.

705 Abd al-Malik restores Umayyad rule.

710-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.

711-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.

719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governor

732 The Muslim Crusaders stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance

749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids

756 Foundation of Umayyid amirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids

762 Foundation of Baghdad

785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova

789 Rise of Idrisid amirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.

800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia

807 Caliph Harun al-Rashid orders the destruction of non-Muslim prayer houses and of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem

809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy

813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country

831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy

850 Caliph al-Matawakkil orders the destruction of non-Muslim houses of prayer

855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)

837-901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France

869-883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq

909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia

928-969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969)

937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places

937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked

960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam

966 Anti-Christian riots in Jerusalem

969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo

c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East

973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids

1003 First persecutions by al-Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed

1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al-Hakim (see 937)

1012 Beginning of al-HakimÂ’s oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians

1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses

1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus

1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed

1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate

1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection

1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia

1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine

1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)

1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia

1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana

1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies

1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca

1090-1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands

1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

So, let's consider these simple questions. Were the Crusades an unprovoked assault by the Christian world upon Islam, or a Christian response to a long train of attacks and assaults upon Christian nations, Christian institutions, and Christian people? Is the anti-Christian rhetoric of Osama and the Islamists a response to the Crusades, or a true expression of Islam that dates back to its foundation?

I believe the above makes the answers quite obvious.

Posted by: Greg at 12:33 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1560 words, total size 10 kb.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

So spoke the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus nearly seven centuries ago, during a dialogue with a learned Persian on the nature of God, revelation, and reason.

And so quoted Pope Benedict XVI in discussing the nature of faith and the place of reaon in relation to it.

Quite frankly, as a Christian, I've gon no problem whatsoever with the original quote, or with its use by the Pope.

Anyone want to guess who does? You got it -- the prickly, easily offended Muslims.

They are demanding apologies, burning effigies, and engaging in violence -- all over the perceived insult to their religion.

But let's stop for just a moment and consider the quote itself.

For a Christian, public revelation stops with the closing of the Christian canon of Scripture. Private revelation must be consistent with Scripture to be accepted as true. That which conflicts with God's revelation to us is false, and therefore presumptively evil.

Which brings us to the question of Islam.

While Islam claims (and many others accept) that Islam worships the same God as the Christians and the Jews, there arefundamental conflicts which exist between these three faiths. Judaism follows the revealed books of the Torah, which point towards the coming of the Messiah. Christianity accepts and reveres those books and adds to them the New Testament, which we hold to reveal that the Messiah came in the form of Jesus of Nazareth, who was the Word made Flesh. Islam, on the other hand, claims that the Quran supercedes Jewish and Christian Scripture, which are labeled as corrupted. Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus and the Triune nature of God are rejected in Islam -- indeed, some Muslims consider Christians to be polytheists because of those beliefs. In short, Judaism and Christianity are, to a Muslim, false, and contain in them elements of evil. I don't hear any calls for Muslims to apologize over what their faith teaches.

Yet when a Pope dares quote a long-dead emperor who expresssed a similar sentiment about Islam, there is outrage. Why? If you are a Christian, you MUST believe that parts of Islam are false. Why shouldn't a Christian say that?

And if there are elements of Islam that go beyond mere falsehood into the realm of evil, then it is incumbent upon Christians to say so.

Which leads us back to the initial quote.

Jihad, for all the recent attempts of Muslims to deny and disguise the truth, is a part of Islam and has been since the days of Muhammad. Furhtermore, it is not merely a peaceful internal struggle for conformity with the will Allah. Jihad is and always has been the use of warfare to defend and spread Islam. If you doubt that, read the Quran and scholarly histories of the Islamic world. Indeed, jihad was the method used to wipe out the historically Christian cultures of much of what is today considered to be "the Muslim World" -- places like Israel, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, and North Africa. They became Muslim through the use of the sword -- jihad.

And therein lies a difference between Chrstianity and Islam, one that the Holy Father was attempting to highlight. Christians believe that faith must spring from reason, and that coercion in religious matters is wrong. Islam does not -- whether we are talking the events of the seventh centuy or the present day, when conversion has been demanded as a condition of being permitted to live (remember the Fox News journalists). To the Christian, forced conversion denies the fundamental free will with which God endowed each of us. It is therefore, as the quote above says, evil and inhuman (in that it fundamentally contradicts what Christians believe to be the true nature of each human person).

So what, exactly, is there to apologize for? For believing it? Or for daring to speak it?

Which leads me to demand of Muslims and their dhimmified apologists (like the al-NewYorkTimes) a response to the following.

1) Is forced conversion wrong ("evil and inhuman") or not?

2) If it is, why shouldn't the Pope (or any other person) say so unapologetically?

3) If it isn't, why did you object to Ann Coulter's call to forcibly convert terrorists and their supporters following 9/11?

As for me, I echo Manuel II Paleologus, and applaud Benedict XVI for daring to use the quote.

Oh, and I wonder -- for all their outrage over words, will Muslim leaders condemn these violent actions?

UPDATE: Even if al-NewYorkTimes doesn't get it, the Times of London does.

This is, in some ways, a re-run of the hoo-ha among some Muslims over the publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons depicting Muhammad. In the frenzy that followed, with bloody riots and demonstrations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Indonesia and India, about 140 people were killed and hundreds were injured. The cartoons were implicated in religious riots in Nigeria in which 200 people — Muslims and Christians — died. Denmark was targeted, its embassies attacked and its businesses boycotted.

The clash of civilisations is not between Christianity and Islam, it is between nations that encourage religious diversity and those which practise religious intolerance. It is between those who favour open debate and those who think free speech is anathema. The Pope may or may not have known what a hornetsÂ’ nest he was stirring up. Even if he did, there was nothing inappropriate, within context, in what he said.

The Vatican has said he is very sorry his speech caused such offence to Muslims. That is fine but it should not go further than that. He should certainly not be pushed into withdrawing his remarks. As in the case of the Danish cartoons, Muslim zealots are trying to impose their restrictions of free expression on the West. Mindful as we should be of religious sensitivities, that cannot be allowed to happen.

Well said! Bravo!

Posted by: Greg at 07:49 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 1032 words, total size 7 kb.

Of all the victims of 9/11, one of the most intriguing is Fr. Mychal Judge, who lost his life providing last rights to the dead and dying at the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Greater love hath no man than this,
that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13

A new film looks at the complicated life and work of the man who some call the Saint of 9/11.

“Saint of 9/11” is a touching elegy for the Rev. Mychal Judge, the much-loved New York City Fire Department chaplain who was one of the first to die at the World Trade Center when debris fell on his head as he was following firefighters into the lobby of the north tower. Although the film makes tentative gestures toward being a full-blown biographical portrait, it isn’t that. Directed by Glenn Holsten and narrated by Ian McKellen in a stately, funereal voice, it is a tender memorial to a complicated man who devoted his life to service.

Its hushed, reverential tone is established early on with an image of Father Judge’s body being carried from the rubble while a talking head compares the picture to a Pietà. As the stories of his good deeds accumulate, he is remembered as a charismatic, down-to-earth man of the people who lived selflessly and joyously.

Father Judge didn’t achieve his state of grace without struggle. The movie delicately approaches his twin demons — alcoholism and homosexuality — but offers no stories of carousing or of sexual misadventure. If the film doesn’t state outright that he was celibate, it strongly implies that he was. By the time of his death, at 68, Father Judge had been sober for 23 years and had saved countless lives by taking people to Alcoholics Anonymous. One man remembers living in a box on the street until Father Judge found and rescued him.

His sexual orientation, which he acknowledged to friends but kept largely hidden from his colleagues at the Fire Department, led him to work closely with the gay Catholic organization Dignity and brought him into conflict with the conservative Catholic establishment. He marched in a St. PatrickÂ’s Day parade organized by the gay activist Brendan Fay, a prominent talking head in the film and one of its producers.

In the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when even medical personnel were fearful of physical contact with quarantined patients, Father Judge ministered to dying young men at St. VincentÂ’s Hospital and physically embraced them. Even when he encountered hostility from patients who wanted nothing to do with religion, he discovered that rubbing their feet with holy oil before talking with them would usually break down their resistance.

If anything, this portrait of a man who repeatedly put his life at risk for love of his fellow man, and who died in doing so, proves the old adage that Christians are not perfect, just forgiven. It also reminds us that we each have our burdens to share as we walk the road to Calvary with our Saviour, carrying our own cross in imitation of him.

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 3 kb.

One of the great blood libels of the twentieth century is the claim that the Catholic Church stood by and did nothing during the Holocaust. What is often overlooked is that many priests, nuns, brothers, and lay people acted in a heroic manner to save Jews from Hitler's Final Solution. Even Pope Pius XII saved those he could, sheltering many of Rome's Jews in the Vatican itself. Indeed, the Catholic Church is creditted with saving over 860,000 Jews by Pinchas Lapide, a Jewish historian and diplomat.

On September 17, the Catholic Church will beatify one of those who died seeking to save Jews from the satanic Nazi regime.

A Hungarian nun who helped saved the lives of dozens of Jews during World War II will be beatified by the Catholic Church, officials said Monday.

Sara Salkahazi was killed by the Arrow Cross -- the Hungarian allies of the Nazis -- on Dec. 27, 1944 for hiding Jews in a Budapest building used by her religious order, the Sisters of Social Service.

Salkahazi was taken along with several other occupants of the home and shot, their bodies falling into the Danube River and never recovered.

The beatification rite will take place Sept. 17 at Budapest's St. Stephen Basilica.

"Sara Salkahazi heroically exercised her love of humanity stemming from her Christian faith," said Cardinal Peter Erdo, who will celebrate the beatification mass. "This is for what she gave her life."

Salkahazi was born in the city of Kassa in 1899, at the time in Hungary but now known as Kosice and part of Slovakia.

It is estimated that Sister Sara Salkahazi and her order, the Sisters of Social Service, saved over 1000 Jewish lives through their efforts.

May the example of Blessed Sara Salkahazi serve as a reminder to all the Christian faithful of our obligation to act in the face of genocide, and to stand up to the evil forces of anti-Semitism which even today seek to finish the job begun by Hitler and his minions during the Holocaust.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Samantha Burns, Stuck On Stupid, Bacon Bits, Third World County, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Dumb Ox, Adam's Blog, Is It Just Me?, Random Yak, Median Sib, Selective Amnesia, Stop the ACLU, Basil’s Blog; Comedian Jenée: People are Idiots , Woman Honor Thyself, Conservative Cat, Church and State, bRight and Early, Right Wing Nation; Jo’s Cafe, MacBro’s Page, Leaning Straight Up; The Amboy Times; Assorted Babble, NIF, Imagine Kitty, Oblogatory Anecdotes, The Uncooperative Blogger, Random Yak, Mark My Words, Pursuing Holiness, Clash of Civilizations, stikNstein

Posted by: Greg at 09:37 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 6 kb.

1 This was an individual, the official church policy was to do nothing, the minute you learn the fucking difference you might be qualified to teach somewhere other than Texas,simpleton.

Posted by: Nunya Biddness at Mon Sep 4 09:54:21 2006 (8ruhu)

2 Listen, you profane coward, it would have been helpful for you to read the FIRST PARAGRAPH -- you know, the one in which I point out that Jewish Sources credit the Catholic Church with saving over 860,000 Jews -- including by the direct action of Pope Pius XII, which would seem to make that effort a matter of offiial church policy, given that he authorized the hiding of Jews within the Vatican itself.

But if you need a little more, consider these tidbits of information that would tend to prove your assertion incorrect.

1) On April 28, 1935, four years before the War even started, then-Cardinal Pacelli gave a speech that stated that the Nazis "are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of social revolution, whether they are guided by a false concept of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult."

2) The day after his election as Pope, the Berlin Morgenpost said: "The election of cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor."

3) Of the forty-four speeches which Pius XII had made on German soil while serving as papal nuncio between 1917 and 1929, at least forty contained attacks on Nazism or condemnations of Hitler’s doctrines. And the 1937 encyclical letter of Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge -- which stridently condemned the Nazi regime and urged resistance against its racist and statist principles -- was written by none other than the papal secretary of state, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, who in less than two years would become Pope Pius XII.

4) While the U.S., Great Britain, and other countries often refused to allow Jewish refugees to immigrate during the war, the Vatican was issuing tens of thousands of false documents to allow Jews to pass secretly as Christians so they could escape the Nazis.

5) On September 2 7, 1943, one of the Nazi commanders demanded of the Jewish community in Rome payment of one hundred pounds of gold within thirty-six hours or three hundred Jews would be taken prisoner. When the Jewish Community Council was only able to gather only seventy pounds of gold, they turned to the Vatican for help -- and the shortfall was supplied directly from the Vatican treasury.

6) As is recorded by historian Joseph Lichten, "The Pope spoke out strongly in their defense with the first mass arrests of Jews in 1943, and L’Osservatore Romano carried an article protesting the internment of Jews and the confiscation of their property. The Fascist press came to call the Vatican paper ‘a mouthpiece of the Jews.’ "

7) Thousands of Jews were sheltered in chuches, basilicas, monastaries, the papal residence at Castel Gandolfo, and in the vatican City itself -- on orders of Pope Pius XII.

The Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, Isaac Herzog, sent the Pope a personal message of thanks on February 28, 1944, in which he said: "The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world."

9) "We share the grief of the world over the death of His Holiness Pius XII. . . . During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people passed through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims" -- Golda Meir, 1958.

10) "Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty." -- Albert Einstein

11) "If the Pope in his Christmas message had intended to condemn Hitler's system, he could not have done it more effectively than by describing the 'moral order' which must govern human society." (NY Times editorial, December 25, 1940)

12) "The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas." (NY Times editorial, December 25, 1941)

13) "This Christmas more than ever he [Pius XII] is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent." (NY Times editorial, December 25, 1942)

14) Following the war, the World Jewish COngress in 1945 gave the Vatican a gift of $20,000 for the material and moral support and assistance given the Jews of Rome by the Vatican.

15) Sir Martin Gilbert, the noted European historian, said that the test for Pius "was when the Gestapo came to Rome in 1943 to round up the Jews." Gilbert writes, "And the Catholic Church, on his direct authority, immediately dispersed as many Jews as they could."

16) Vatican Radio regularly broadcast denunciations of Nazi attrocities during WWII -- including those committed against the Jews.

And I'll end with this one

17) "Of all the incendiary literary bombs manufactured in Moscow…and thrown with such lighthearted recklessness into the unity of Allied nations, none is likely to do greater damage than Izvestia's unjust and intemperate attack upon the Vatican as 'pro-Fascist.'" (NY Times editorial, February 4, 1944)

Given the Communist origins of the lies about Pope Pius XII and the silence of the Catholic Church, I'm not surprised that you embrace them whole-heartedly. Perhaps such ignorance and bigotry is acceptable at your exit from the Jersey Turnpike, but rest assured that it is not in the rest of America.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Sep 4 10:55:17 2006 (zkUZO)

3 Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable bigotry

Posted by: Fox 2! at Mon Sep 4 18:19:11 2006 (rd9wD)

4 I rebutt you with the following BBC news excerpt from 16 March 98:

The Vatican has apologised to Jews on behalf of the entire Roman Catholic community, for failing to speak out against the Nazi holocaust during World War Two.

In his letter accompanying the apology, the Pope said the holocaust remained an indelible stain on the 20th century.

Sounded like an admission of guilt to me you fucking religious asshat. The curch's official position was to say and do nothing and that has been proven beyond a doubt. What individuals did as versus the ORGINIZATION is a different matter you stupid clown. I am critical of the US Government's inaction too, but you're too pent up with the religious bullshit to notice.

No wonder the only state with an worse education record is Mississippi. Moronic fuckwaffle conservatard chickenshit chickenhawk.

Posted by: Nunya Bidness at Tue Sep 5 14:08:57 2006 (8ruhu)

5 Actually, the BBC got it wrong in that report. Indeed, the document in question, "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah", makes great efforts tod ocument the efforts of teh CHurch to act against the Nazis and the Holocaust. While contrition is express for teh failure of the Church to do more, it hardly constitutes an admission that the Church remained silent.

Might i suggest you read the document itself (the primary source) rather than the BBC article (a secondary source)?

And please quit abusing my hospitality here by engaging in profane abusive rants -- especially if it is your intention to remain a testicularly-deficient coward who cannot even leave valid contact information.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Sep 5 15:30:05 2006 (pnl7u)

6 crimesin ft. meryers fl 05 23 06 frank payne texas deidra leonard

Posted by: Albina-jr at Thu Nov 13 09:33:26 2008 (TH9pw)

7 transvestite rockstar

Posted by: Albina-ld at Thu Nov 27 17:07:50 2008 (UIWyl)

8 baltimore and convention center and headquarters nasdaq 100 tennis tournament

Posted by: Albina-zp at Thu Nov 27 22:20:17 2008 (CtUwW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

At an airport, trying to board a plane? Don't wear a shirt with an Arabic slogan on it.

An Arab human rights activist was prevented from boarding a plane at Kennedy Airport while wearing a T-shirt that read, "We will not be silent" in English and Arabic.

Raed Jarrar was at the gate to board a JetBlue Airways flight to Oakland, Calif., on Aug. 12 when four officials from the airline or a government agency stopped him and told him he could not board with the shirt on, he said Wednesday.

One official told him, "Going to an airport with a T-shirt in Arabic script is like going to a bank and wearing a T-shirt that says, `I'm a robber,'" he said.

Sorry, folks, but in a day and age in which we are at war with a group of people who use Arabic to communicate their plans and their fould ideology, wearing a shirt written in Arabic to the airport or on a plane is a provocation. Don't do it.

Posted by: Greg at 12:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.