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

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

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

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

A couple of thoughts.

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

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

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

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

Let's play soccer!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After all, what do you call this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debbie Schlussel is on this one for us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A shameful end to a shameful incident.

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

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

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

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

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

Frankly, I find the whole incident shameful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muslim complaints about anti-Muslim bias crimes up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know whose name won't be changing.

And he's now available at CafePress!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because after all, we can't have a cute children's toy named after the false prophet. That name must be reserved for suicide bombers and other terrorists!

Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, rallied Friday in a central square and demanded the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear "Muhammad."

In response to the demonstration, teacher Gillian Gibbons was moved from the women's prison near Khartoum to a secret location for her safety, her lawyer said.

In Britain, Gibbons' son, John, told The Associated Press that her mother was "holding up well" and she made an appeal for tolerance.

"One of the things my mum said today was that 'I don't want any resentment towards Muslim people,'" John Gibbons said, relaying part of a telephone conversation with her.

Too bad, Gillian -- resentment is the minimum that folks like the ones who have you in prison and who want to take your life deserve.

And how far gone are these murderous followers of the Religion of Barbarism?

The protesters streamed out of mosques after Friday sermons, as pickup trucks with loudspeakers blared messages against Gibbons, who was sentenced Thursday to 15 days in prison and deportation. She avoided the more serious punishment of 40 lashes.

They massed in central Martyrs Square outside the presidential palace, where hundreds of riot police were deployed. They did not try to stop the rally, which lasted about an hour.

"Shame, shame on the U.K.," protesters chanted.

They called for Gibbons' execution, saying, "No tolerance: Execution," and "Kill her, kill her by firing squad."

* * *

Several hundred protesters, not openly carrying weapons, marched from the square to Unity High School, about a mile away, where Gibbons worked. They chanted slogans outside the school, which is closed and under heavy security, then headed toward the nearby British Embassy. They were stopped by security forces two blocks away from the embassy.

The protest arose despite vows by Sudanese security officials the day before, during Gibbons' trial, that threatened demonstrations after Friday prayers would not take place. Some of the protesters carried green banners with the name of the Society for Support of the Prophet Muhammad, a previously unknown group.

Many protesters carried clubs, knives and axes — but not automatic weapons, which some have brandished at past government-condoned demonstrations. That suggested Friday's rally was not organized by the government.

A Muslim cleric at Khartoum's main Martyrs Mosque denounced Gibbons during one sermon, saying she intentionally insulted Islam. He did not call for protests, however.

"Imprisoning this lady does not satisfy the thirst of Muslims in Sudan. But we welcome imprisonment and expulsion," the cleric, Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri, a well-known hard-liner, told worshippers.

"This an arrogant woman who came to our country, cashing her salary in dollars, teaching our children hatred of our Prophet Muhammad," he said.

No, you are doing quite a good job of teaching civilized people to despise your false prophet without any help from Gibbons. After all, the demand for death over the naming of a children's toy is a sign of the collective psychosis that infects Islamist hard-liners like you. Such things clearly prove that you do not follow the God of love and compassion embraced by Jews and Christians.

Of course, a teddy bear that offers Islam's most sacred prayers is just fine.

Besides, there is a more fitting use for the name Muhammad.

MORE AT Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Blogs of War, Bloodthirsty Liberal, A Blog For All, The Spade, People Covered In Fish, Gina Cobb, BUUUUURRRRNING HOT, Sugiero, Blue Crab Blvd., Public Secrets, Contentions

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 623 words, total size 6 kb.

Islamo-censors win a round.

Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen, who was hounded into hiding by hardline Islamists, said on Friday she will remove a passage from an autobiography which some Indian Muslims found offensive.

Nasreen, who had been living in Kolkata since 2004, said she hoped the move would enable her to live in peace in India.

"I am withdrawing the controversial lines from my book Dikhandito," she told NDTV news channel.

"The book was written in 2002 based on my memories of Bangladesh in the 1980s during which time secularism was removed from the Bangladesh constitution," she said.

She was accused of hurting religious feelings and the book was banned in Bangladesh and India's neighbouring West Bengal state.

"Because I value secularism I wanted secularism to remain in the Bangladesh constitution," Nasreen said.

"I didn't write the book to hurt anybody's sentiments," the 45-year-old said without giving details of exactly what the passage mentions.

"Some people claim that sentiments have been hurt. It was not intended. I hope there will be no controversy anymore and I will be able to live peacefully in India," she said.

Giving in to the murderous mobs that seek to suppress anything that paints the Religion of Barbarism as barbaric and backwards won’t help. You may as well put on a gasoline-soaked burqa and wait in the middle of the street for the mob to set you ablaze. You will not be forgiven – and you deed here has served only to endanger every other free man and women who dares to speak truthfully about Islam.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 5 kb.

They canÂ’t be troubled to stop slavery and the murder of non-Muslims in their country, but the backwards Muslims in the Sudan sure can punish someone for giving the wrong name to a teddy bear.

British teacher Gillian Gibbons has been convicted of inciting religious hatred for letting her pupils name a teddy bear Muhammad and sentenced to 15 days in prison and deportation from Sudan, one of her defense lawyers said Thursday.

"The judge found Gillian Gibbons guilty and sentenced her to 15 days jail and deportation," said Ali Mohammed Hajab, a member of her defense team.

And to prove how dhimmified the folks who run the school are, get this quote.

The director of the school employing Gibbons, however, noted that since she had already spent five days in prison, she would serve only 10 days.

"It's a very fair verdict, she could have had six months and lashes and a fine, and she only got 15 days and deportation," said Robert Boulos of the Unity High School, adding they would not appeal the decision.

This ignores, of course, that Gibbons had done nothing wrong – and that the “offense certainly does not merit any judicial notice.

But at least these Islamist swine didnÂ’t get their way.

A powerful Sudanese newspaper urged authorities to call a hardline Islamist leader linked to Osama bin Laden to give evidence at her trial, to stress how offensive the case was to Muslims.

Extreme Islamic groups said Mrs Gibbons "must die" and urged Muslims to hold street protests after prayers tomorrow.

Yep, that sort of stuff is what they mean when they talk about the glorious, peaceful nature of Islam – kill someone over an inoffensive action. All in the name of defending the honor of their false prophet.

H/T Michelle Malkin, WinderKraut, A Blog For All, Liberty Papers

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Adam's Blog, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:43 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 5 kb.

I guess its OK to call a terrorist Muhammad, but not a teddy bear.

Sudan on Wednesday charged a British teacher with insulting religion and inciting hatred, a crime punishable by up to 40 lashes, six months in prison or a fine, after she named a class teddy bear "Muhammad."

The charges come a day after a 7-year-old Sudanese boy said Gilliam Gibbons, 54, asked him as part of a school assignment what he wanted to call the stuffed animal and he said, 'Muhammad,' after his name.

It was harmless. It was innocent. Heck, it was even a little bit cute. But given the congenital state of offendedness in which these folks seem to operate, I guess we should not be surprised by the barbarous overreaction to the naming of a childÂ’s toy.

Oh, and I love the reaction of American feminists.

A spokeswoman for the National Organization for Women said the situation "is definintely on the radar, and N.O.W. is not ignoring it.
But she added that the U.S.-based organization is "not putting out a statement or taking a position."

In other words, they donÂ’t have the guts to issue the sort of condemnation these charges deserve. After all, it might present Muslims in an unflattering light, and make the West look reasonable and enlightened.

Over in England, though, someone sees the matter clearly and isnÂ’t afraid to say it.

Once again, secular people around the world are left reeling at the capacity of Islam to discern "insult" in the most innocuous behaviour. At one level, this sequence of events is preposterous; I'm sure there are plenty of genuine crimes to worry about in Sudan without wasting time pursuing a woman whose good intentions are manifest.

But the significance of the case goes beyond the individuals concerned, highlighting aspects of Islam as it is currently practised in countries such as Sudan and Saudi Arabia – and promoted in some European mosques – which are incompatible with the modern world. One is the role of honour, which has repeatedly been used to legitimise furious over-reactions to everything from the naming of a toy to instances of women and gay people demanding autonomy over their bodies.

Ever since the outcry over The Satanic Verses nearly two decades ago, I have watched Muslim men (they almost always are men) use the claim that their honour has been insulted as an excuse for disgraceful and frequently criminal behaviour. Salman Rushdie "insults" the Prophet: burn his books. Danish cartoonists display a lack of respect for Islam: attack Danish embassies. A British Muslim girl wants to marry the "wrong" man: kill her for shaming the family. A Saudi rape victim complains that her attackers got off too lightly: increase her sentence (for being in a car with a man who wasn't her husband) to 200 lashes.

* * *

The damage that is being inflicted daily on the image of Islam doesn't come from people like me, who are constantly accused of Islamophobia, but practices such as forced marriage, honour killings and heated denunciations of "Western" values. I can't think of any secular country where a rape victim or a well-meaning British teacher would find themselves threatened with flogging.

When will the world recognize that much of what passes for Islam today is nothing less than a crime against humanity, and that it needs to be treated as such by all civilized nations?

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 580 words, total size 4 kb.

Of all the absurdity! Of all the barbarity!

A British primary school teacher arrested in Sudan faces up to 40 lashes for blasphemy after letting her class of 7-year-olds name a teddy bear Muhammad.
Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, was arrested at at Khartoum's Unity High School yesterday, and accused of insulting the Prophet of Islam.

* * *

Robert Boulos, the Unity director, said Gibbons was following a British National Curriculum course designed to teach young pupils about animals and their habitats. This yearÂ’s animal was the bear.
In September, she asked a girl to bring in her teddy bear to help the class focus and then asked the children to name the toy.
“They came up with eight names including Abdullah, Hassan and Muhammad. Then she explained what it meant to vote and asked them to choose the name,” Boulos said.
Twenty out of the 23 children chose Muhammad. Each child was allowed to take the bear home for weekends and asked to keep a diary about what they did with the toy. Each entry was collected in a book with a picture of the bear on the cover, next to the message "My name is Muhammad."
Boulos said that the bear itself was not marked or labeled with the name in any way, adding that Sudanese police had now seized the book and asked to interview the 7-year-old girl who brought in the bear.

Of course, I would never name a teddy bear Muhammad, given my reluctance to give insult – to the cute stuffed animal.

But I would like to introduce you to our new mascot for posts on Islamic Outrage.

H/T Michelle Malkin, Shimshon 9, JammieWearingFool

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 4 kb.

Christopher Hitchens is a wonderful writer and a clear thinker on matters not related to religion – but when it comes to Mitt Romney’s religion, he is positively unhinged. That Slate would even consider publishing what can only be considered a hate piece on Mitt and Mormonism.

It ought to be borne in mind that Romney is not a mere rank-and-file Mormon. His family is, and has been for generations, part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith. It is not just legitimate that he be asked about the beliefs that he has not just held, but has caused to be spread and caused to be inculcated into children. It is essential. Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to know how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one.

Upon what basis does this would-be Torquemada argue that Romney should be subject to increased scrutiny for his beliefs? Why, his family tree and his missionary work (as well as raising his children in the faith, apparently). What next? Dose Hitchens intend to insist that all Catholic candidates take a public stand upon the issue of ordaining women? What of Orthodox Jews like Joe Lieberman – would he ask such questions, or even dare to do so for fear of being rightly labeled as an anti-Semite?

And then there is this resurrection of the bigotry of 1960 – appropriate, as it was first raised in 1994 by none other than Teddy Kennedy’s campaign – about whether he would be a puppet of the leaders of his church in Salt Lake.

There is also the question—this one more nearly resembles the one that John F. Kennedy agreed to answer so straightforwardly in 1960—of authority. The Mormons claim that their leadership is prophetic and inspired and that its rulings take precedence over any human law. The constitutional implications of this are too obvious to need spelling out, but it would be good to see Romney spell them out all the same.

The evidence is pretty clear on this one -- that Mormons with such distinct political philosophies and behaviors as Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid should be proof of that.

And then there is this flip comment.

If candidates can be asked to declare their preference as between briefs and boxers, then we already have a precedent, and Romney can be asked whether, as a true believer should, he wears Mormon underwear. What's un-American about that?

Other than that the original question to Bill Clinton was inappropriate, and his decision to answer gave clear evidence of his basic unfitness for office, there is no reason to discuss what may have been the nadir of American politics during the last 20 years. What next- asking Joe Lieberman if he is circumcised?

I’m not a Mormon, and I have repeatedly rejected their doctrine as being nonsensical to me .Those who want to make Mormonism an issue in the 2008 presidential race fall into one category with two horns – they are all bigots, and the only question is if they are motivated by a hatred of Mormonism in particular or religion in general. In Hitchens’ case, we know the answer.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 629 words, total size 5 kb.

I find the discussion of the Catholic confrontation with Pentacostalism to be significantly less interesting than this movement on the ecumenical dialogue between East and West -- and the potential for bringing an end to the millennium-old scandal that is the Great Schism.

Kasper opened his remarks by updating the cardinals and cardinal-designates on an important new document approved by a Vatican-Orthodox theological commission that has been working to heal the 1,000-year schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

In the document, Catholic and Orthodox representatives both agreed that the pope has primacy over all bishops _ although they disagreed over just what authority that primacy gives him.

The development is significant since the Great Schism of 1054 _ which split the Catholic and Orthodox churches _ was precipitated largely by disagreements over the primacy of the pope.

Kasper told the cardinals that the document was an "important turning point," since it marked the first time that Orthodox churches had agreed there is a universal level of the church, that it has a primate, and that according to ancient church practice, that primate is the bishop of Rome _ the pope.

This hardly means that we are going to wake up some morning and find that the Orthodox and Catholics have suddenly united. What it does mean, however, is that the two sides are making progress on one of the two or three biggest issues that divide these two ancient streams of Christianity. There is still a long way to go before full communion can be reestablished -- but I'd argue that we are closer to that than at any time since 1054, and that is a sign of hope for all Christians. After all the divisions within the body of Christ are a disgrace based upon human weakness and pride, not the will of God.

Posted by: Greg at 03:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

"Sticks and stone
Will break your bones
If you write words
That offend us."
-- Traditional Muslim Nursery Rhyme

For more than a decade, the writer Taslima Nasrin has been fighting; fighting against the courts, fighting to be heard and fighting for her life. Last night, the Bangladeshi-born author was struggling again as violent protests in one city – and the purported threat of further violent protests in another – saw her shuttling across India to avoid angry Muslims who have accused her of insulting Islam.

"I have no place to go. India is my home and I would like to keep living in this country until I die," the Sakharov Prize winner told The Hindu newspaper. "Here in this country, I have got the love and sympathy of the people for which I am grateful."

On Thursday, Nasrin was forced to flee from the city of Kolkata where she has been living for the past two years, a day after Muslim activists led protests against her which resulted 50 people being injured and the imposition of a curfew. The All India Minorities Forum, a Muslim group, has demanded she be deported not just from Kolkata, formerly known as Calcutta, but from India.

But after one night in Jaipur, Rajasthan, the authorities there decided that Nasrin should also leave to avoid the risk of a repetition of violence. "She didn't inform the government of Rajasthan before coming here and as she requires high security we asked her to leave," the Home Minister, Gulab Chand Kataria, told reporters. As a result Nasrin was last night headed to Delhi, and presumably further controversy.

On a daily basis, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and members of many other religious groups see writings that in some way offend their religious beliefs. Somehow, such offense rarely breaks out into violence, and the authors of such writings don't have to flee their homes on a regular basis because of mobs of believers bent on murder rioting in the streets. Heck, not even a cult like Scientology tries to kill its critics anymore -- though they do try to sue them into silence. But Big Mo's Cult of Hate and Violence regularly turns out loads of blood-thirsty true-believers when their religious sensibilities are touched upon by those who reject the false teachings of the Quran.

When will world leaders begin to speak out forcefully against the continual violations of human rights perpetrated in the name of Islam? And I don't mean bland condemnations like those heard after the Rushdie fatwa 20 years ago, but forceful statements containing clear and unambiguous consequences for those who seek to impose the chains of sharia upon those who reject them.

Posted by: Greg at 03:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

I've tried saying something like this in a dozen different ways. But I think that Peggy Noonan hits the nail on the head with this comment about the religious beliefs of this year's crop of presidential candidates.

There are some people who believe faith doesn't belong in politics. But it does, and it is there inextricably. The antislavery movement, the temperance movement, the civil rights movement, the antiabortion movement, all were political movements animated in large part by religious feeling. It's not that it doesn't matter. You bring your whole self into the polling booth, including your faith and your sense of right and wrong, good and bad, just as presidents bring their whole selves into the Oval Office. I can't imagine how a president could do his job without faith.

But faith is also personal. You can be touched by a candidate's faith, or interested in his apparent lack of it. It's never wholly unimportant, but you should never see a politician as a leader of faith, and we should not ask a man whose made his rise in the grubby world of politics to act as if he is an exemplar of his faith, or an explainer or defender of it

For better of for worse, the moral beliefs of Americans have (and, I believe, always will) animate the political direction of this nation. And for the overwhelming majority of Americans, that moral sense is drawn from religion. That includes our political leader.

When we vote, I believe that most Americans want to elect someone who they believe has such a moral center, and a firm anchor upon which their morality is based. To the degree to which that means we want our candidates to be, at some level, "religious", I don't think it is inappropriate to inquire into whether or not that moral center exists.

But at the same time, presidential elections (and other elections, for that matter), are not and should not be referenda upon the religious faith of candidates. Does Joe Lieberman's Judaism make him more or less fit for office than Romney's Mormonism? The question is absurd -- all we need to know (as demonstrated by their lives and policies) is that each of these men hold fast to some sense of right and wrong that is in vague congruence with ours. Indeed, the notion that I would vote for Hillary Clinton over Mitt Romney because I find the teachings of the Methodist Church more authentically within the realm of Christian orthodoxy than those of the LDS Church strikes me as bizarre.

In 2008, America will elect a President, not a Pope, Patriarch, or Primate. We will elect someone to be commander-in-chief, not theologian-in-chief or pastor-in-chief. And while we will certainly expect an element of moral leadership from that individual, we cannot and should not expect moral perfection. of men and women who are candidates for the presidency rather than candidates for sainthood. What we must do is choose the individual we believe who will be best guided by their religious and moral beliefs (whatever they may be) to act in a manner that our religious and moral beliefs (whatever they may be) tell us is right for the country.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Stix Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Phastidio.net, Chuck Adkins, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 610 words, total size 5 kb.

After all, they have disbarred a human rights lawyer for engaging in a series of actions that qualify as internationally recognized human rights.

Saudi officials have revoked the license of human rights lawyer Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, who has handled the country's most controversial cases and defended a gang-rape victim sentenced to jail time and lashes.

Lahem, 36, faces a disciplinary hearing Dec. 5 to determine the length of his suspension.

Lahem is accused by the prosecutor general of "belligerent behavior, talking to the media for the purpose of perturbing the judiciary, and hurting the country's image," according to an official letter he received Monday.

Since he started practicing law almost five years ago, Lahem has defended clients whom other lawyers refused, including a school administrator suspended for criticizing the religious establishment, a man convicted of promoting homosexuality for saying it was genetic, three political reformists seeking a constitutional monarchy, and the first Saudis suing the country's powerful religious police.

Lahem said that losing his license would be a blow to the country's budding human rights movement.

"If I am banned from practicing law, nobody will dare go up against the judiciary again," said Lahem, a slight man with a limp from a childhood accident. "If I win, it will open a new chapter for human rights in Saudi Arabia."

But the reality is that Lahem will not win, given the repeated insistence of the forces of Islam upon placing sharia dictates ahead of human rights. Time and again we have seen Islamic law trump such things as religious freedom and freedom of speech, both of which are recognized as basic human rights under international law. For that matter, this action by the Saudis grows out of a case in which a rape victim was sentenced to be whipped because of the attack -- and had her sentence more than doubled for publicly speaking out against such barbarism.

Such actions in the name of Islam do nothing to contribute to the image that its followers and apologists seek to present -- that of an enlightened, peaceful faith. Instead, it shows quite clearly that Islam has no respect for human rights, and that sharia law is nothing less than a crime against humanity.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Nuke's, Three Forces Of Evil, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Global American Discourse, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 5 kb.

I wonder – would a Christian official be able to get away with a comment disrespectful of Jewish (or other) religious beliefs in a manner similar to this?

The Ohio Christian Alliance and state Republican Party have demanded an apology from the state attorney general for telling his communications director that some of the bad press the spokesman got was worse than Christ's crucifixion.

The Dayton Daily News obtained reams of e-mails sent and received by Democratic Attorney General Marc Dann at his office. The e-mails were released after a lengthy battle over public records access.

On April 6, Dann wrote to his director of communications, Leo A. Jennings III, about an editorial in the Youngstown, Ohio, newspaper that yielded a series of unflattering online postings about Jennings.

"Jesus had it better on good [sic] Friday," Dann wrote in the e-mail — which was written on the Christian holiday commemorating Christ's crucifixion and death.
Following the Daily News' publication of the exchanges, Ohio Christian Alliance President Chris Long drafted a letter demanding that Dann apologize.

"I think it would benefit all if he was to make a public apology," Long said in an interview. "That a public official would make a bigoted comment about the crucifixion on Good Friday has people outraged and in disbelief."

The GOP has joined in calling for an apology from Dann, who mocked the crucifixion on the Christian holy day marking it. But Dann refuses to apologize.

He said that he and Dann have been friends for more than 20 years and that the attorney general, who is Jewish, doesn't discriminate against people of any religion.

"Marc cherishes his own faith and is deeply respectful, considerate and tolerant of the religious beliefs held by others," wrote Jennings.

"He is absolutely committed to upholding the religious freedoms guaranteed by both the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions and he would zealously oppose any attempt made by anyone to impinge upon those freedoms."

So it appears that DannÂ’s defense is that he is a nice Jewish boy who would never say anything offensive, so all of the folks who are offended can go pound sand. Such insensitivity from the stateÂ’s attorney general is unacceptable, and he should certainly offer an immediate apology -- and seriously consider resigning.

After all, I'm sure that is what Jewish leaders would expect of a Christian official who made such insensitive comments about Jewish practices.

Posted by: Greg at 10:39 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 408 words, total size 3 kb.

I may be reading between the lines here, but that may just be what this article is hinting at.

Last month, the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, a network of 400,000 breakaway Anglo-Catholics based mainly in America and the Commonwealth, wrote to Rome asking for "full, corporate, sacramental union".

Their letter was drafted with the help of the Vatican. Benedict is overseeing the negotiations. Unlike John Paul II, he admires the Anglo-Catholic tradition. He is thinking of making special pastoral arrangements for Anglican converts walking away from the car wreck of the Anglican Communion.

This would mean that they could worship together, free from bullying by local bishops who dislike the newcomers' conservatism and would rather "dialogue" with Anglicans than receive them into the Church.

The customary way of creating such "special pastoral arrangements" in the past is that seen among the various Eastern-rite jurisdictions (the historical term "uniate" is seen by many as derogatory, but still sometimes used), with a completely separate hierarchy. This could, of course, have interesting implications regarding the practice of priestly celibacy in the West.

Of course, I could be reading more into this than is really there.

Posted by: Greg at 08:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 2 kb.

I mean, antiquated notions like "right" and "wrong" just seem so dated to some folks when they get in the way of their sex lives.

Some gay Catholics said they were frustrated by a local archbishopÂ’s homily last month that railed against gay marriage.

The homily, delivered Oct. 25 by Baltimore Archbishop Edwin O’Brien during a special Mass for judges and attorneys, asserted that straight marriage is “radically threatened” by courts and lawmakers intent on legalizing gay marriage.

According to the Catholic Review, O’Brien called on congregants to make the defense of heterosexual marriage “an urgent necessity to ensure the flourishing of persons, the well-being of children and the common good of society.”

The homily did not sit well with gay Catholics like Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministries, a Maryland organization that advocates for the inclusion of gays in the Catholic Church.

“It’s frustrating that someone like him, in a position of power and authority in the church, has such a misinformed view about sexuality, relationships and marriage,” he said. “The church really would do better if he would enter into a dialogue with gay and lesbian people and their families and those who are ministering with them.”

It is frustrating that someone like DeBernardo, who runs what is supposed to be a Catholic organization, is so poorly catechized that he thinks his position has any theological merit whatsoever. DeBernardo and his ilk would do better if they would enter into a dialogue with God the Father, his Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit to help him understand what is wrong with his position in support of sin. Who knows, they might even come in contact with a little bit of God's transforming grace, and attempt to conform themselves to His will rather than insisting that the Church conform to theirs.

But if they cannot find their way clear to accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, might I suggest that there are other religious bodies they could choose that much more neatly fit their theological proclivities. Perhaps they could consider one of those instead.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

Benedict XVI will be visiting New York City – with a stop at Ground Zero – this spring. He will also visit Washington, DC.

Pope Benedict XVI will make his first visit to the United States as pontiff in April. He plans to visit ground zero, address the United Nations and celebrate two public Masses during the six days of his visit, The Associated Press reported this morning, citing a Vatican official.

The popeÂ’s visit would be only the fourth in New York CityÂ’s history. Pope Paul VI visited in October 1965, during the first papal visit to the United States. Pope John Paul II visited New York in October 1979 and October 1995.

I canÂ’t help but regret that the Holy Father will not be visiting other parts of the US as well.

Posted by: Greg at 12:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Imagine the uproar if the Archdiocese of St. Louis were to host a Seder featuring ham sandwiches and pork rinds and an introductory reading fromMein Kampf. There would be, rightly, outrage and accusations of anti-Semitism. Jewish organizations would certainly choose to break ties with the Catholic organizations, and it would rightly be seen as a setback in the relationship between the two religious groups.

So where is the condemnation of the synagogue hosting this grave insult to Catholicism?

To the Roman Catholic Church, the ceremony was not an ordination. In fact, it wasn't even Roman Catholic. But to two women and the approximately 600 people who came to cheer them on, history was made Sunday in St. Louis as the two became the first women ever in the city to be ordained as Catholic priests.

And the first ever, perhaps in the world, to be ordained in a synagogue.

Rose Marie Hudson, 67, of Festus, and Elsie Hainz McGrath, 69, of St. Louis, were ordained as priests by an organization called Roman Catholic Womenpriests, which defines itself "as an international initiative within the Roman Catholic Church."

Not only is the Archdiocese of St. Louis upset about the women participating in an ordination ceremony, but the church and others in the interfaith community were upset that the Central Reform Congregation, in the Central West End, hosted the event.

"The event of today is really very sad because the name Roman Catholic has been misused and misapplied," said Dr. Lawrence J. Welch, a Kenrick-Glennon Seminary theology professor. "There's been no ordination of Roman Catholic priests. In fact, there has been a profaning of something Roman Catholics believe is very sacred."

To members of the diverse crowd — the dozen ministers in robes and stoles of different colors, those wearing yarmulke, and some wearing buttons saying "God loves us, just ask her" — the ceremony showed unity and understanding.

"What a day, what an occasion, what a case, what a rabbi," said Patricia Fresen, the ordaining bishop with Roman Catholic Womenpriests, referring to the synagogue's rabbi, Susan Talve. The room boomed with applause.

Shame on Rabbi Talve and her congregation for hosting this event. Shame on those who assisted in this profaning of a Catholic sacrament. And shame on Fresen, Hudson, and McGrath for not having the honesty and the courage to proclaim themselves what they truly are – Protestants who have broken with Rome and placed themselves outside of the Catholic Church.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.

What it really comes down to is this -- is Scripture the Word of God, intended for all times and places? Or has God changed his mind about the things written in the Bible?

The dispute has played out across the country as those who hold to traditional Christian theological views struggle with those who want to supplant the historical Christian faith with modern social science and liberal political agendas.

This week, it has played out in Pittsburgh.

By more than a two-to-one vote, members of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh voted Friday in favor of separating from the national church because of a theological rift that began with the consecration of an openly gay bishop in 2003.

The vote sets the stage for what could become a protracted legal battle between the diocese and the Episcopal Church U.S.A., which had warned PittsburghÂ’s bishop not to go forward with the vote.

After passionate appeals from both sides of the debate, clergy members and lay people voted 227 to 82 to “realign” the conservative diocese.

If FridayÂ’s vote is approved again in a year, the diocese will begin steps to remove itself from the American church and join with another province in the worldwide Anglican Communion.

After the vote, Bishop Robert W. Duncan of Pittsburgh, who is also moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, an alliance of conservative dioceses and parishes, defended the decision.

“What we’re trying to do is state clearly in the United States for the authority of Scripture,” Bishop Duncan said after the vote, taken during the diocese’s annual convention in this city about 50 miles east of Pittsburgh.

The vote was necessary, he said, because the more liberal bishops now in the majority in the national church “have hijacked my church, and that’s how most of the people here feel.”

Interestingly enough, the leadership of the national Episcopal Church, which rejects the authority of the Worldwide Anglican Communion, insists upon its own authority being respected by the Diocese of Pittsburgh and other dissidents. So much so that they have indicated a plan to take the dispute into the civil courts.

I guess that stuff in the New Testament about not suing fellow Christians over religious issues in government courts is so first-century. As with what was written about homosexuality, it doesn't apply today -- what God meant was "hire a good corporate lawyer and sue your enemies". After all, God is so much smarter today than he was back then, so anything written in the Bible has to be taken with a grain of salt. He'd agree with the liberals on this one -- just ask them.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.

Never mind that it could play into the same sort of frenzy set off by false reports of flushed Qurans.

A Muslim inmate says prisoners around the country are regularly mistreated by their jailers because of religious faith. The Supreme Court is considering his case Monday.

The issue in the inmate's lawsuit is whether he can sue prison officials for allegedly confiscating two copies of his Quran and his prayer rug.

Abdus-Shahid M.S. Ali, a convicted murderer, says the books and rug are among the personal items that have been missing since 2003, when he was moved from a federal penitentiary in Atlanta to a facility at Inez, Ky.

Muslim inmates have been subjected to "very hard times and bad treatment" at the hands of federal, state and local prison employees because of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Ali says in court papers.

Ali is serving a sentence of 20 years to life in prison for committing first-degree murder in the District of Columbia.

So we know the true nature of the guy making the complaint -- he is a cold-blooded killer. I guess that doesn't stand in the way of his being a good Muslim, does it? Religion of Peace and all that.

Ali says the items he turned over to prison officers in Atlanta for shipment never arrived at Inez.

In the Supreme Court, the question is whether federal prison officials qualify as law enforcement officers and are therefore exempt from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946. The statute bars liability claims against law enforcement officers involved in detaining property. Two lower federal courts ruled against Ali.

Besides the two copies of the Quran and the prayer rug, Ali is missing stamps and other personal items worth $177 that he says weren't sent along to Big Sandy penitentiary in Kentucky.

Gee, growing up my family moved at six times -- and every time, something got lost in transit. My complete medical records for the first six years of my life were lost by the Department of Defense when they were shipped from Naval Hospital Balboa to Naval Hospital Bethesda, though the rest of the family records arrived just fine. Sounds like the same thing here. But I guess you can get more press claiming confiscation than simple loss.

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 2 kb.

I hold a certain ambivalence towards the death penalty. On the one hand, I have deep concern over its use upon the innocent. At the same time, I recognize that some crimes are, by their very nature, so heinous that no other penalty is adequate to express society's outrage. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that some offenders -- and not just murderers -- clearly forfeit the presumption of a right to life by the very nature of their crimes.

And that is where I come to this case, which transfixed the nation this summer, and the community of faith that struggles to deal with it.

The United Methodist Church here is the kind of politically active place where parishioners take to the pulpit to discuss poverty in El Salvador and refugees living in Meriden. But few issues engage its passions as much as the death penalty.

The last three pastors were opponents of capital punishment. Church-sponsored adult education classes promote the idea of “restorative justice,” advocating rehabilitation over punishment. Two years ago, congregants attended midnight vigils outside the prison where Connecticut executed a prisoner for the first time in 45 years.

The problem, of course, with the whole "restorative justice" concept is that there is no real way of making whole the victims and the community in certain cases. And that is precisely the problem in the case at hand.

So it might have been expected that United Methodist congregants would speak out forcefully when a brutal triple murder here in July led to tough new policies against violent criminals across the state and a pledge from prosecutors to seek capital punishment against the defendants.

But the congregation has been largely quiet, not out of indifference, but anguish: the victims were popular and active members of the church — Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, and her two daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11. On July 23, two men broke into the family’s home. Mrs. Hawke-Petit was strangled and her daughters died in a fire that the police say was set by the intruders.

The killings have not just stunned the congregation, they have spurred quiet debate about how it should respond to the crime and whether it should publicly oppose the punishment that may follow. It has also caused a few to reassess how they feel about the punishment.

Yeah -- the liberal "principle" at work here gets really hard to stand by when it hits too close to home. All of a sudden one is forced to reexamine what one believes when the hard, cold reality and unspeakable evil intrudes. Sure, ideas like "restorative justice" sound great in theory -- especially when one talks about property crime -- but it doesn't work when you have three dead loved ones to deal with. They are not going to be restored.

At the heart of the debate are questions about how Mrs. Hawke-PetitÂ’s husband, William, who survived the attack, feels about the death penalty. The indications are conflicting. Sensitive to his grief, many of the churchÂ’s most ardent capital punishment opponents have been hesitant to speak against the capital charges brought against two parolees charged with the killings, Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes.

“I’m treading lightly out of respect for the Petit family,” said the church’s pastor, the Rev. Stephen E. Volpe, a death penalty opponent. “I do not feel we, in this church, ought to make this tragedy the rallying cry for anything at this point.”

Yeah -- but if this was some other family from some other church, would you be more than willing to do so? If so, then that is either a sign that you are unwilling to stand by your principles when they are inconvenient, or that you know that they are wrong but unwilling to own up to that reality. After all, if you really believe that your position is coming out of the Gospel, then you need to proclaim it when it is hard, not just when it is easy -- unless it is less about the Gospel and more about a political agenda sugar-coated with a veneer of religion.

At the same time, there is a widespread belief that Mrs. Hawke-Petit was opposed to capital punishment. Having her killers put to death would be the last thing she would want, many say.

“It’d be so dishonoring to her life to do anything violent in her name,” said Carolyn Hardin Engelhardt, a church member who is the director of the ministry resource center at Yale Divinity School Library. “That’s not the kind of person she was.”

At least two church members say they think that Mrs. Hawke-Petit endorsed an anti-death-penalty document known as a Declaration of Life. The declaration states a personÂ’s opposition to capital punishment and asks that prosecutors, in the event of the personÂ’s own death in a capital crime, do not seek the death penalty. The documents have been signed by thousands of people, including Mario M. Cuomo, the former governor of New York, and Martin Sheen, the actor.

“She was a nurse and she would not cause harm to anyone,” said Lucy Earley, a congregant who notarized at least a dozen declarations during an appeal at the church and said she thought Mrs. Hawke-Petit’s was among them.

Declarations of Life are often kept with a personÂ’s will or other important papers; sometimes they are filed with registries. But it could not be independently determined whether Mrs. Hawke-Petit had signed one. Although the familyÂ’s home was heavily damaged in the fire and no independent copies have surfaced, death penalty opponents both inside and outside the church have kept trying to find one. A clear indication that Mrs. Hawke-Petit rejected capital punishment could help them mobilize, they say, not only in the Cheshire case but also on behalf of the nine people on ConnecticutÂ’s death row in Somers.

The opponents also say that a signed declaration by Mrs. Hawke-Petit opposing capital punishment could help counter the public outrage to the killings — outrage that has pressured state officials to suspend parole for violent criminals.

I'm about to make a really terrible sounding statement -- the views of Jennifer Hawke-Petit (or her daughters, or her surviving husband and other family members) on the death penalty are at best tangentially relevant to the eventual sentence given in this case. When prosecuted, the case will not be prosecuted in her name -- it will be prosecuted in the name of the people of the state of Connecticut, recognizing that the offense committed was not just against her and her family, but also against society as a whole. Indeed, the question is what do the people of Connecticut view as an appropriate punishment for the horrific events that took place this summer -- views quite clearly expressed in support of the death penalty.

But I put a different question to those anti-death penalty ideologues who urge that the victim's views should be the overriding factor in determining the sentence for murder -- if a victim left behind some clear demand for the execution of their murderers, would you be equally passionate in demanding that execution be the only option at sentencing? If their clearly articulated religious views supported the death penalty, would you insist that they be the guiding force in this case? Or would you argue, in typical liberal fashion, that your views are so much more compassionate and humane and advance than theirs and that your views must therefore override the wishes of the victim? You don't need to answer -- we already know.

Still, if proof of Mrs. Hawke-PetitÂ’s sentiments did surface, it would have little standing in court, lawyers and prosecutors say.

“Our job is to enforce the law no matter who the victim is or what the victim’s religious beliefs are,” said John A. Connelly, a veteran prosecutor in Waterbury who is not involved in the Cheshire case. “If you started imposing the death penalty based on what the victim’s family felt, it would truly become arbitrary and capricious.”

Michael Dearington, the state’s attorney who is prosecuting the suspects in the Petit killings, said he did not know whether Mrs. Hawke-Petit had signed a Declaration of Life. Asked if he knew Dr. Petit’s views on the death penalty, he replied, “I have a no comment on that.”

Interestingly enough, the article goes on to indicate that Dr. Petit is in support of the death penalty in this case. That creates an interesting problem for those who talk about "restorative justice", because it appears that the one surviving victim may have a very different view of what it will take for justice to be done. And while there is an anecdote regarding the use of the Prayer of St. Francis at the memorial service for his murdered family, and his struggle with the word pardon, let us not forget that forgiveness and justice are not mutually exclusive concepts in the Christian tradition, or in the American legal system.

I'm going to stop the fisking at this point. I do so for two reasons.

1) Much of the rest of the article constitutes a rehashing of the same issues raised earlier. and a focus on some genuinely good and decent works of the congregation. Frankly, I admire much of what is reported here, and do not doubt the people of the congregation are men and women of faith seeking to follow the Gospel. While I disagree with them on some points (in particular the death penalty issue), I respect them and mean nothing in the way of disrespect for them in anything I have written.

2) It hits too close to home. Jennifer Hawke-Petit, you see, was a friend of my wife's when they were growing up in Pennsylvania. She attended the couple's wedding, and the baptism of Hayley, their oldest daughter. She worked for Jennifer Hawke-Petit's father for a time. The events of this summer caused much anguish around our home, and much talk the victims and their families. I choose to honor those things revealed by not speaking of them more publicly in this forum.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, , Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Lost Paradise, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, A Blog For All, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, CORSARI D'ITALIA, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 04:07 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1803 words, total size 14 kb.

Rather than allow the traditional flag-folding ceremony as an option at the burial of our nation's veterans, the long-standing tradition has been banned by a government bureaucrat? Why? Because of a complaint over a reference to God.

Flag-folding recitations by Memorial Honor Detail volunteers are now banned at the nationÂ’s 125 veterans graveyards because of a complaint about the ceremony at Riverside National Cemetery.

During thousands of military burials, the volunteers have folded the American flag 13 times and recited the significance of every fold to survivors.

The first fold represents life, the second a belief in eternal life, and so on.

The complaint revolved around the narration in the 11th fold, which celebrates Jewish war veterans and “glorifies the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”

The National Cemetery Administration then decided to ban the entire recital at all national cemeteries. Details of the complaint werenÂ’t disclosed.

Administration spokesman Mike Nacincik said the new policy outlined in a Sept. 27 memorandum is aimed at creating uniform services throughout the military graveyard system.

He said the 13-fold recital is not part of the U.S. Flag Code and is not government-approved.

And, of course, we can't have anything that isn't in the Flag Code. So let's ban the ceremony by government fiat. As I recall, though, the Flag Code also bans disrespectful burning of the flag. I guess that some speech is just a little more equal than other speech.

But most distressing is that a single complaint has resulted in the destruction of a long-standing tradition, and its denial to those who find comfort in the ceremony at a time of loss. Wouldn't a reasonable approach have been to require that the family be asked as a part of the funeral arrangements whether the ritual was welcome?

Veteran volunteers are planning a little civil disobedience on this one.

Here's a petition to overturn this assault on religion in our veteran's cemeteries.
More At Malkin, Stop the ACLU, Liberty Pundit, and Cao's Blog

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, A Blog For All, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 444 words, total size 6 kb.

Now we can argue over whether or not the response to receiving the books is the correct one, but I think this situation raises a different question that is being overlooked.

Two dozen Oklahoma lawmakers plan to return copies of the Quran to a state panel on diversity after a lawmaker claimed the Muslim holy book condones the killing of innocent people.

The books were given to Oklahoma's 149 senators and representatives by the Governor's Ethnic American Advisory Council.

* * *

[Council Chairperson Marjaneh] Seirafi-Pour said the gift was a way to introduce the council to lawmakers so they could use it as a resource to "serve their offices and constituents." Oklahoma lawmakers also received a copy of the Bible earlier this year from The Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma.

Now did anyone catch the troubling detail in the excerpt? If you didn’t, go back and look again. The books were given to the legislators by an official governmental panel. Why was that? Isn’t that a violation of the constitutional separation of mosque and state? How much government money was spent procuring the books and distributing them to the legislators? Were the sacred texts of other religious groups also distributed by the Governor’s Ethnic American Advisory Council, or did they specifically act to establish Islam as the state religion of Oklahoma? Do Buddhists, Hindus, and other religious believers qualify as second-class citizens in the eyes of these multi-culti buffoons, if their books were not also distributed to enable legislators to “serve their offices and constituents”? Given the large population of Native Americans in Oklahoma (certainly outnumbering Muslims), were Cherokee and other tribal religious texts also put into the offices of legislators?

And donÂ’t try to compare that to the gift of the Bibles, because those came to the legislators from a private organization, not an arm of the government. These Qurans came with the official imprimatur of the executive branch.

Where is the freakinÂ’ ACLU on this one, folks? Or do the rules that apply to Christians not apply to Muslims?

UPDATE: I just came across this information regarding the distribution of the Qurans.

Gov. Brad Henry's Muslim advisory council is offering personalized Korans to lawmakers to mark the state's centennial, with each copy to be embossed with the Oklahoma state seal and the recipient lawmaker's name. The all-Muslim group — plain-vanilla-named the American Ethnic Advisory Council — asked lawmakers to notify it if they didn't want a Koran, which the group described as "the record of the exact words revealed by G-d through the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad." So far, 24 have declined.

Of course, it's the rejection of the Korans that's making headlines, not their state-sealed if privately funded distribution. No one asks what the Koran has to do with Oklahoma's centennial, for Pete's sake; or why a government organization is proselytizing about "the exact words" of Allah; or how those words in that book sound to non-Muslims leery of Islam's age-old message to convert, submit or die. In our weird world, it's not the Islamic message that's branded hateful or even insensitive; it's the person who rejects it. This is the technique that usually shuts people up.

If this is correct, the books themselves are privately funded – but still being distributed by a government panel. This still seems to be creating a “mosque and state” problem to me.

Second, why is an “Ethnic American” group composed solely of Muslims? Even if, as Diana West notes later in the column, it was intended to be a group to be composed of members of the "Middle East/Near East community", why are there no Arab Christians or Middle Eastern Jews? Why doesn’t its name clarify what “ethnic Americans” it is intended to “advise” about if it is intended to be an exclusively Muslim group? Could it be intended to disguise the “mosque and state” violation in question?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, , A Blog For All, guerrilla radio, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 743 words, total size 7 kb.

Some folks just need to get over themselves.

A halloween decoration is stirring up controversy in Chicopee.
Kelly lynch is a self-proclaimed witch and has been studying witchcraft since she was a child.

She's offended by this decoration of a witch hanging from a noose.

Lynch was so put off that she went straight to the owner's front door and asked him to take it down.

"He told me that people should lighten up, and that it's a halloween decoration," said Kelly Lynch "to have that as your only halloween decoration, it's kind of odd."

The owner refused to take it down.

Lynch says it's no laughing matter and is calling it a hate crime against her religion and to the entire community.

Lynch is threatening to protest if he neighbor doesnÂ’t take it down. ThatÂ’s her right.

Just as it is his right to have whatever Halloween decorations he wants.

And to add a second witch effigy – tied to a stake atop a pile of kindling. And to douse it with lighter fluid and set it alight during Lynch’s attempt to intimidate him into silence.

Private property and personal choice – they are beautiful things about this country. Don’t let a witch like Kelly Lynch take them away.

UPDATE: But in this case elsewhere in the country, the grievance-mongers win after bringing government pressure based upon spurious claims of racism.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Rock the Casbah! Rock the Casbah!

Kashmiri Muslim children pose for a photograph on the occasion of Eid al-Fitr at Eidgah in Srinagar, India.

And a little fun for my fellow Clash fans.

Posted by: Greg at 06:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the problems with Ann Coulter is that when she is right she manages to offend folks. Take the most recent flap in which she said something correct in a way that sounds just awful.

Conservative author Ann Coulter finds herself in the middle of a firestorm once again after remarks on a CNBC television show in which she said Jews need "to be perfected" and suggested the nation would be better off if it were all-Christian.

Appearing on "The Big Idea" with host Donny Deutsch on Monday, she said Christians were tolerant of racial diversity but that it "would be a lot easier" for Jews if they were to become Christians.

Deutsch, who described himself as a practicing Jew on the show, was clearly dismayed by the remarks, which he called "hateful" and "antisemitic," according to a transcript published on the Web by Editor and Publisher.

Yep, that’s our Ann – managing to put her foot in her mouth even when she expresses a view that is well-within the realm of Christian orthodoxy.

The problem is, of course, that she said what she said in a way that does not communicate it well.

What she should have said is that we Christians believe that the coming of Christ as the Messiah perfected the Covenant of the Old Testament and transformed it into something new. That is, of course, the message of the New Testament, which emphasizes salvation by faith and not by a rigid adherence to the Law of the Old Testament. As such, Christianity can be legitimately said to be “perfected Judaism”.

However, Coulter is wrong in how she communicates one point. We as individual Christians are not perfected – indeed, as one pop theology cliché states, Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven. As a more abstract theological statement, coming from one of the great theologians of the Reformation, would have it that we are covered by Christ’s righteousness, but are not ourselves righteous due to our sinful human nature. That is why I consider Coulter’s way of phrasing her point to have been very sloppy, to the point of unintentional offensiveness – but it is not anti-Semitic.

This brings me to two other points that I view as quite important. The Christian Scriptures include Jesus’ call to “make of all disciples”. As such, it is our baptismal mission to preach to and convert others. It is our hope that every person will truly embrace Christ in faith – to come under the Covenant made perfect by the death and resurrection of God Made Flesh. And yes, that includes the Jews, who we were the first people to hear the Gospel message and many of whom, we are told in the Book of Revelation, will accept Christ as their Savior in the last days as they recognize that the words of the prophets are fulfilled in him. And those things, my friends, are essential elements of Christianity – not the “be nice to everyone, help others” notions of pop theology that I heard proclaimed as “Real Christianity” by some of the scripturally and theologically ignorant talking heads as I prepared for school today.

And IÂ’d like to close with the thoughts of commentator and blogger Debbie Schlussel, who is herself a proud observant Jew. She notes that she actually knows An Coulter, and based upon that knows that Coulter is not an anti-Semite. She also points out that the beliefs expressed by Ann Coulter should offend her fellow Jews no more than the beliefs of Jews should offend Coulter and others.

To wit: That we, as Jews, don't accept the full Christian Bible, and therefore, it's the Christian belief that we need to be fully accepting of it. She said "That is what we [Christians] believe we are--perfected Jews."

Why should that offend me? I've had brunch with Ann, and we've had many conversations through e-mail, etc. During all of that, she's never once told me she's offended that I believe that I am part of the Chosen People. To you far-left Jews and other uber-liberals who want to rush off and call Ann an anti-Semite, that means that we as Jews believe Christians and Hindus and Bahai Faithers (and definitely, Muslims) are not Chosen. Does that make me a religious bigot? Nope. It just means I actually believe in my religion. Just like Ann does. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Would that such common sense will prevail here – though given that Coulter (of whom I am not a great fan, by the way) has been the subject of an unrelenting witch hunt by liberals intent upon ridding the media of the popular columnist and commentator, I doubt that it will do so among those most intent upon stirring up another faux scandal involving a conservative pundit.

UPDATE: Jewish group says Christians can't claim their faith is correct without being anti-Semitic. Sounds mighty intolerant, anti-Christian, and bigoted to me. After all, they are daring to say that Christians are wrong in what they believe and need to believe something else to be correct -- just what they are condemning Ann Coulter for doing.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, , The Random Yak, guerrilla radio, 123beta, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, The Pet Haven, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Stop the ACLU, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 960 words, total size 10 kb.

At least if they insist that the “survival of the world” is at stake.

The "survival of the world" is at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace with each other, leaders of the Muslim world will warn the Pope and other Christian leaders today.

In an unprecedented open letter signed by 138 leading scholars from every sect of Islam, the Muslims plead with Christian leaders "to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions" and spell out the similarities between passages of the Bible and the Koran.

The scholars state: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."

Excuse me, but the last time I checked it was Muslims who have been attacking Christians since the time of Muhammad, waging war on us on account of our religion, oppressing us, and driving us out of our homes. Remember – much of the Middle East and all of North Africa was Christian in the year 600 AD – but by 700 AD it was Muslim.

Only the heroic stand of Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732 stopped the advance of the Islamic horde into Western Europe – and it took another seven-and-a-half centuries to reclaim Christian Spain from the clutches of the Moors.

Constantinople, the Christian city of the first Christian emperor, is today in a Muslim land and its cathedral, Hagia Sophia, has never been returned to the hands of the Christian faithful from whom it was stolen by the Turks in 1453.

As late as the 1600s, Muslim troops stood at the gates of European cities, threatening to impose their rule and their faith upon the Christian inhabitants thereof.

Today, Christians in the Muslim world – where they are not forbidden entirely – live an existence as a persecuted minority with second-class citizenship. Just this week, one such Christian was murdered for the crime of selling Christian books in Gaza, and he is only one of the hundreds who will be martyred at the hands of Muslim fanatics this year.

Peace with Islam? I’d love to see it. But the problem here is not the Christians – it is the followers of Islam, and the cancerous forces of violence that are drawn from the Quran itself, that are the problem. Until the Muslim faith gets its own house in order, peace is impossible.

I, for one, applaud the stand taken by this courageous British churchman who knows quite well the true nature of Islam and the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The first reaction to the letter, from the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, a leading Anglican expert on Islam, appeared to be critical.

Dr Nazir-Ali, who was born in Pakistan, welcomed the Muslim scholars' deisire for a dialogue, but said that the appeal was based on the Muslim belief in the oneness of God.

"What I would say to that is that Christians uphold belief in one God vigorously but our understanding of the oneness of God is not the Muslim understanding," he told The Times. "We believe in God as source from whom everything is brought into being. Jesus is God's word and presence for us but is also human."

He added: "One partner cannot dictate the terms on which dialogue must be conducted. This document seems to be on the verge of doing that."

Peace between us? Yes. But it must be a true peace, not a Munich-style “peace in our times” with an aggressive enemy that seeks out ultimate destruction.

More at Tammy Bruce, STACLU, Weasel Zippers, Brutally Honest, Infidel Bloggers Alliance, Villagers With Torches, Needs Of The Many, Curt Jester, Texas Rainmaker, Conservative Thoughts

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Right Pundits, Perri Nelson's Website, , DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Right Celebrity, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 713 words, total size 7 kb.

CanÂ’t the dead be allowed to rest in peace? Or does latter-day dhimmitude mean that long dead Christians must make way for freshly dead Muslims?

A row has erupted over a plan to dig up a third of a million bodies from an historic east London cemetery to make way for a new Muslim burial site.
Tower Hamlets council in London is considering reopening the Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park in Mile End to answer a long-running campaign for a Muslim graveyard in the area.

The park, off Bow Common Lane, was deconsecrated as a Church of England cemetery by Parliament in 1966, after being deemed full with about 350,000 bodies buried there.

Yeah – the creation of Eurabia continues, as the heritage of Christian Europe is again disrespected and destroyed. That this is even being considered is shameful

But don’t worry – soon the Parliament will act to stop. . . the criticism of the destruction of part of the heritage of Great Britain by declaring it hate speech and punishing folks critical of the rape of the dead to provide special privileges for Muslims.

Posted by: Greg at 01:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

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

Instead, she chose to avoid answering the question.

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

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

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

Notice what she avoids answering.

1) Are you offended by the poster?

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

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

But the obvious answers are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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