There would be riots, fatwas and murder attempts for everyone involved – assuming the show were even allowed to air.

Comedian Larry David is under attack from critics who say he pushed the mocking of religion and Christian belief in miracles over the edge in the latest episode of his HBO series "Curb Your Enthusiasm," which the cable network defended as "playful."

On the show's most recent installment, which aired Sunday, David urinates on a painting of Jesus Christ, causing a woman to believe the painting depicts Jesus crying.

I suppose there is a bit of humor in the story line, but not much. Indeed, most decent people should be appalled by this attention-grabbing stunt. But let’s be honest about it – there isn’t much chance of David and the rest of those involved facing any consequences for their mocking of Christianity. We don’t riot in response to such things – we might complain, but then we turn the other cheek.

Why not be really edgy, Larry? Wipe your but with a page from the Qu’ran and see what happens. Not only would it be equally edgy and disrespectful of the feelings of religious believers, but it would also present the opportunity for some of us to set up a “Larry David death pool” so we can place wagers on how long it might take offended Muslims to hunt you down and kill you – or whether you might be able to survive for a few years under heavy guard like Salman Rusdie.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Either that, or she does not understand sharia. If either of these two things is true, she has no place holding a position in the American government that relates to Islamic affairs.

President Barack Obama's adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.

Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President's Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was "oversimplified" and the majority of women around the world associate it with "gender justice".

The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.

The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.

Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir's national women's officer, Nazreen Nawaz.

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular "man-made law" and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism".

They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government".

Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that "promiscuity" and the "breakdown of traditional values" were what Muslims admired least about the West.

Got that -- the Obama Regime is inclusive of those who want women covered and subservient to men, with non-Muslims put into a second-class status with fewer rights than Muslims. Frankly, who gives a damn what such people want, given that it is antithetical to the US Constitution and the entire American tradition.

I'd like to say I'm shocked -- but I'm not.

Disgusted? yYeah -- but not shocked

Posted by: Greg at 08:47 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

Moe Lane points out that one particular prominent hate crime has gone unsolved for 10 months – and the media seems particularly intent on overlooking the offense and ignoring the lack of progress of the investigation.

I posted on this three months ago - and in those three months: if there has been anything done by the current government in investigating this hate crime that would merit an update, I havenÂ’t found it.  Somebody attempted to murder several women and children via arson, and itÂ’s becoming depressingly clear that that person (or persons) has gotten away with it clean.

This offends me.  It should offend you.  If it doesnÂ’t, I donÂ’t really care what your excuse is.

Yes, that’s right – there seems to be no progress in the investigation of the arson attack on the Wasilla Bible Church last year. Want to bet that if this had been an attack on Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ we would have seen massive amounts of federal resources poured into the investigation of the crime – one which would be seen as both a hate crime and an act of political terrorism, just as the attack on the WBC ought to be?

Why the lack of progress? Why the lack of press coverage? Why the lack of public outrage?

Posted by: Greg at 11:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

As a Christian, I would never dare to write a post on this blog suggesting that Moses, David, or Solomon (or any of the Hebrew prophets) was quitting Judaism over the policies of the Obama Regime towards Israel or the content of the platform of the Democrat Party. And under no circumstances would I put blasphemous words into the mouths of Jewish politicians and commentators, showing them as condemning any of those revered religious figures for their failure to adhere to the tenets of contemporary liberalism.

Not only that, I would never link to such a post on another blog -- except, perhaps, to condemn it as a vile bit of anti-Semitism.

I therefore feel I am well-within my rights to condemn well-known liberal pundit Alan Colmes, who is a Jew, for tweeting up and blogging about this bit of vile anti-Christian garbage. And what's more, I can't help but note the disingenuous tone he adopts in expressing surprise that Christians might take offense at his having done so.

I don't take offense that Alan Colmes would speak ill of the GOP. I don't even find it troubling that he would be critical of Christianity. Rather, I am offended by the particularly vile and blasphemous way manner in which the post he so approvingly links does both. I guess that in Alan's liberal worldview, respect and tolerance for other faiths does not extend to Christianity -- because unlike the followers of certain other faiths, Alan knows that Christians like those he insults will turn the other cheek rather than seek to take his life in retribution.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

Saw this on a blog run by the Houston Chronicle today. I'd normally be offended, but for some reason I'm not in this case. Indeed, I find it thought provoking.

Pet-Loving Atheists will care for fido when you leave!
.

I will reach your pets within 18-24 hours of the event (transportation infrastructure permitting) and bring them to live in our homes with us for the remainder of the pets' lives.
.

Pre-payment required, this rescue service only costs $110 per pet and expires in 10 years.
.

This is not a joke. If you truely believe in the Rapture don't leave you poor puppies unattended when you leave!
.

Contact Junior at BR549

Now here's my question -- assuming that the "Left Behind" model of the Rapture is accurate (indeed, assuming that the verses in Scripture giving rise to notions of the Rapture are intended literally and not metaphorically), should Christians plan for it? If so, how? Thoughts?

Posted by: Greg at 01:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

A couple of weeks ago, I asked the following questions after reports surfaced about the US military burning Bibles sent to Afghanistan.

I’m curious – will there be riots in the streets over this? Will there be an investigation of who gave the order, and apologies to offended Christians like happened when it was falsely reported that a Koran may have been desecrated at Gitmo? Or since Christians don't riot or issue fatwas, will the US government simply ignore the offense given? And will the liberals who expressed outrage that soldiers might share the Gospel with Muslims express their revulsion at this act of official desecration of Christian religious texts by the US government?

ABCNews reporter Jake Tapper is covering the story now, and offers this question.

On May 5, Army spokeswoman Major Jennifer Willis told Reuters that at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan "the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera's clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed."

Today, Christian Broadcasting's David Brody says "the Bibles were burned because the rules on the base say that all garbage is burned at the end of the day. But just asking here; if the U.S. Military seized a stack full of Korans, would they be burned? You think that might cause a little outrage in the Muslim world?"

Indeed, how quickly would a court martial ensue for those involved in burning a stack of Korans?

Seems to me that the time has come for us to move from the notion of turning the other cheek and instead consider that it may be time to look to the words of Christ found in Luke 22:36.

“But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.”

After all, our own government has seen fit to burn the book accepted as Scripture by the overwhelming majority of Americans in order to curry favor with the enemies of America.

And I'm opening comments on this one, so folks can respond here if they wish.

Posted by: Greg at 11:00 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 3 kb.

I wonder, though, precisely what sort of Islam will be taught at this university.

A group of American Muslims, led by two prominent scholars, is moving closer to fulfilling a vision of founding the first four-year accredited Islamic college in the United States, what some are calling a "Muslim Georgetown."

Advisers to the project have scheduled a June vote to decide whether the proposed Zaytuna College can open in the fall of next year, a major step toward developing the faith in America.

Imam Zaid Shakir and Sheik Hamza Yusuf of California have spent years planning the school, which will offer a liberal arts education and training in Islamic scholarship. Shakir, a California native, sees the school in the tradition of other religious groups that formed universities to educate leaders and carve a space in the mainstream of American life.

And may I say that this last point could be the most important. Will we begin seeing the development of a Muslim leadership born, raised, and educated in an environment of American religious pluralism who are therefore open to that way of life? Or are we going to see the development of a radical elite educated in this country, who are trying to mainstream the worst that Islam has to offer (as exemplified by American Muslims convicted of jihadi terrorist activities)? I am hoping for the former, which I believe would benefit both America and Islam.

Posted by: Greg at 11:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

I know I see one.

Why are they gathering?

On Sunday mornings, when many of their contemporaries are taking their seats in church pews, a group of young parents mingle in the living room of a suburban home while their children run around playing games.

This congregation of Triangle residents has no creed or ceremony, just a desire to get together and offer each other support for rearing children without religion. Taking their cue from a primer of the same name, they call themselves Parenting Beyond Belief, and they meet nearly every Sunday, in a city park, an indoor playground or in people's homes.

But to what end are they gathering?

[T]hey share a disdain for organized religion and a desire to rear their children with the tools to think for themselves.

Now wait – they are gathering with the goal of raising their children to believe a certain way. And yet they then claim that they want the children to “think for themselves.” Odd – when one of the children asks a question that indicates they are thinking in a manner at variance with what their parents believe, how do they respond?

For example, when 6-year-old Evan Spiering announced one day that "God created the world," his father, Todd Spiering, answered, "Grandpa believes that. Some people believe other things."

But wait – why are they undermining what young Evan apparently thinks? Don’t they want him to “think for himself”? Seems to me that they really want Evan to hold to their own beliefs, rather than formulate his own.

But then again, since when have atheists been particularly consistent. As another article points out, inconsistency is inherent in how they approach the entire issue of God.

And then there's the question of why atheists are so intent on trying to prove that God not only doesn't exist but is evil to boot. Dawkins, writing in "The God Delusion," accuses the deity of being a "petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak" as well as a "misogynistic, homophobic, racist ... bully." If there is no God -- and you'd be way beyond stupid to think differently -- why does it matter whether he's good or evil?

Not only that – if they actually believe there is no God, then arguing over the nature of God is the equivalent of debating the color of a leprechaun’s blood. What it really comes down to, then, is that most such folks actually believe in God, but want a reason to refuse to follow.

This all reminds me of one of my friends in college who claimed to be an atheist because her aunt discontinued cancer treatment after prayerfully deciding that ending a painful and fruitless treatment was “accepting God’s will”. I’ll never forget the logically inconsistent argument – “If God’s will was for my aunt to die, then I refuse to believe in God any longer!” So maybe I shouldn’t be surprised by the development of what can only be described as “atheist Sunday school” for small children.

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

This, my friends, is troubling – and not because of the fact that it honoring the faith of those responsible for 9/11, but because it is setting aside a day to honor any faith.

Hawaii’s state Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill Wednesday to celebrate “Islam Day” _ over the objections of a few lawmakers who said they didn’t want to honor a religion connected to Sept. 11, 2001.
Â…The resolution to proclaim Sept. 24, 2009, as Islam Day passed the Senate on a 22-3 vote. It had previously passed the House.
The bill seeks to recognize “the rich religious, scientific, cultural and artistic contributions” that Islam and the Islamic world have made.

Now hold on – will there be a Judaism Day? How about a Christianity Day? Buddhism Day? Scientology Day? Jedi Knight Day (hey – the British recognize Jedi Knights as a religion for census purposes)? And where are the usual crew of secularists raising a red flag over this state recognition of religion?

Posted by: Greg at 01:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

I never thought I would be as ashamed of my country as I am at this moment. This is positively disgraceful.

Bibles in Afghan languages sent to a U.S. soldier at a base in Afghanistan were confiscated and destroyed to ensure that troops did not breach regulations which forbid proselytizing, a military spokeswoman said.

* * *

Military officials have said the bibles were sent through private mail to an evangelical Christian soldier by his church back home. The soldier brought them to the bible study class where they were filmed.

Confiscated and destroyed? Why not simply returned to the sender? Why resort to book burning in order to suppress the free exercise of religion on the part of both American soldiers and the citizens of Afghanistan?

There’s another country that destroys contraband Bibles in order to protect Islam by guaranteeing that Muslims do not hear the Gospel and are therefore not tempted to exercise their human right to freely change their religion. That country is Saudi Arabia – I wrote about that a couple of years ago.

I’m curious – will there be riots in the streets over this? Will there be an investigation of who gave the order, and apologies to offended Christians like happened when it was falsely reported that a Koran may have been desecrated at Gitmo? Or since Christians don't riot or issue fatwas, willthe US government simply ignore the offense given? And will the liberals who expressed outrage that soldiers might share the Gospel with Muslims express their revulsion at this act of official desecration of Christian religious texts by the US government?

I wonder -- in the next report of countries that suppress the religious liberty of their people, will the US State Department now include the United States as an offender rather than a champion of religious liberty?

Posted by: Greg at 09:47 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

1 hi all body , purchasing pamelor, 26538, zidovudine, vfuyk, Epivir, 6602, Cefaclor, %DD,

Posted by: Feldene at Mon Oct 5 08:55:06 2009 (Y+1uB)

2 hi gays , weekly weight loss, 84306, herbs for weight loss, yxuhw, antidepressant weight loss, ), high fiber weight loss, pbc,

Posted by: workout for weight loss at Mon Oct 12 19:08:13 2009 (NYD1G)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

And I, for one, donÂ’t see a problem with a Christian minister telling Christian soldiers to obey the Great Commission given by Jesus Christ.

In a video obtained by Al Jazeera and broadcast Monday, Lieutenant-Colonel Gary Hensley, the chief of the US military chaplains in Afghanistan, is seen telling soldiers that as followers of Jesus Christ, they all have a responsibility "to be witnesses for him."

"The special forces guys - they hunt men basically. We do the same things as Christians, we hunt people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them down," he says.

"Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the kingdom. That's what we do, that's our business."

The translated Bibles appear to be the New Testament. According to Al Jazeera, US soldiers "had them specially printed and shipped to Afghanistan." On the tape, one soldier describes how his church in the US helped raise money for the bibles. Al Jazeera reports that "What these soldiers have been doing may well be in direct violation of the US Constitution, their professional codes and the regulations in place for all forces in Afghanistan." The US military officially forbids "proselytising of any religion, faith or practice.

As I see it, the terrorist supporters at A-Jazeera may have it exactly backwards. Chaplains are not forbidden to preach the Gospel, and soldiers retain the right to practice their faith. Indeed, any attempt to restrict either would constitute a serious violation of the US Constitution – and for the US government to seek to restrict sharing the Gospel with locals in Afghanistan or any other country constitutes a material cooperation with the violation of human rights.

Posted by: Greg at 08:31 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

A rather interesting dichotomy – perhaps based upon the notion that malefactors should suffer the consequences of their misdeeds,

The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.

Gee, I wonder what they would make of my position – that the jihadis should be subject to any and all interrogation methods until we wring the last shred of information from their brains and then summarily executed with a single shot to the back of the head, using a bullet that has been dipped in bacon grease.

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

I do wish that Pope Benedict would tell these swine that heÂ’ll never again apologize for allegedly insulting IslamÂ’s false prophet when he quoted a centuries-old manuscript.

Jordan's powerful Muslim Brotherhood on Tuesday demanded Pope Benedict XVI apologize ahead of his Mideast tour for his previous remarks about the Prophet Muhammad that many Muslims interpreted as insulting their faith.

The controversy centers on a speech the pope made in September 2006 about Islam and violence in which he quoted a Medieval text that characterized some of the teachings of Muhammad as "evil and inhuman," particularly "his command to spread by the sword the faith."

"The pope insulted Islam and deeply hurt our feelings back in 2006 and he must apologize now to clear the air with Muslims worldwide," said Brotherhood spokesman Jamil Abu-Bakr. "We expect a written or verbal apology now or right before he visits Jordan."

Excuse me, but given the fact that the Quran is full of blasphemous statements about Jesus Christ. It claims that Jesus was not the Son of God, was not crucified, and did not rise from the dead. It further claims that Jesus was a Muslim. None of this is true, and in the eyes of any true Christian constitutes blasphemy. Add to that multiple other insulting and blasphemous teachings (from a Christian perspective) that are part and parcel of Islam, and the allegedly insulting comment of the Pope ranks as nothing.

Apologize? Never! Call Muslims to repentance and conversion to Christianity? ThatÂ’s the ticket.

Posted by: Greg at 10:08 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

This has been simmering in my mind for a couple of days now.

I don't know why it has stuck with me so long and so intensely.

Sunday, I went to church like always. But this time I found myself seated near someone I usually don't sit near, a NASA doctor and his family. They are really great people, and I have always liked them enough.

So, why am I noting this, days later.

It is what happened when it came time for the reading of scripture and the sermon.

Our pastor announced the Gospel reading, and they all immediately whipped out -- their iPhones!

I was shocked. Could they really be getting ready to text during the sermon?

And then I caught a glimpse of the screen of one of the phones as they scrolled down. It was, much to my surprise, the Easter story from the Gospel of John!

I guess technology is changing everything. Now you don't even need your Bible at church -- just your phone.

Any reactions?

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

AllahPundit shares the following at HotAir.

“A Catholic German bishop has come under fire for his remarks condemning atheists. In a sermon given on Easter Sunday, the bishop of Augsburg, Walter Mixa, warned of rising atheism in Germany. ‘Wherever God is denied or fought against, there people and their dignity will soon be denied and held in disregard,’ he said in the sermon. He also said that ‘a society without God is hell on earth’ and quoted the Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky: ‘If God does not exist, everything is permitted.’

Most controversially, he linked the Nazi and Communist crimes to atheism. ‘In the last century, the godless regimes of Nazism and Communism, with their penal camps, their secret police and their mass murder, proved in a terrible way the inhumanity of atheism in practice.’ Christians and the Church were always the subject of ’special persecution’ under these systems, he said.”

This strikes me as pretty non-controversial. A bishop objecting to non-belief? And daring to note that there really is no objective morality absent the recognition of the existence of God? And as for daring to point out that it was the atheistic regimes of left-wing ideologies like Communism and Nazism that proved the essential bankruptcy of state-sponsored rejection of Godly values – the truth is in the numbers. I suppose the controversy is not over whether or not Bishop Mixa is right or wrong, but rather over his having had the audacity to speak the truth to a world that does not wish to hear it.

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

Imagine this situation.

Your wife has brutally tortured a two-year-old family member to death.

You respond in outrage to the press.

Not because your wife is a psycho killer.

Because the cops dared take her mug shot without her hijab and then released it to the press.

The police booking photo of alleged child killer Nour Hadid released Tuesday is an "insult against our religion," says Hadid's husband, Alaeddin.

The Hadids are Muslims and Nour "never leaves the home without covering up," said Alaeddin, who's vowed to sue.

By custom, some practicing Muslim women wear the hijab, or headscarf, and cover their arms and legs when in public.

In the mug shot, a bare-headed and obviously emotional Nour appears to be protecting her modesty with her hands.

"It is against our religion; we do not do this in our culture," Alaeddin said.

Dude, get your priorities in order and direct your outrage where it belongs. You know, towards your wife -- or is it not against your religion and culture to torture toddlers to death?

Posted by: Greg at 01:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

Yep, Religion of Peace and all that stuff.

International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that Noor Husain, the father of a Muslim woman who eloped with a Christian man, led a mob of his neighbors and friends in an attack on his village's only church in Pakistan's Punjab province. After desecrating the church, the men forced their way into Christian homes, dragged out the women, and paraded them forcefully on the streets.

The assault, which occurred several months ago, so terrified the Christian community that 21 families fled, leaving only four Christian families who are still in the village.

"Petrified Christians locked their homes and fled to their relatives, living in other villages and cities, to save their lives," said Ashraf Masih, a Christian resident who has remained in the village.

Several Christians were injured, including two women whose teeth were broken.

I don’t think there is really much to add to this story, do you? After all, what we have here is a pogrom against a religious minority because a Muslim woman dared to exercise her free will by marrying a Christian. Such things are all too common in the Islamic world – but not in civilized nations.

H/T Gateway Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

That whole death thing is such a distracting bummer – and the resurrection is a bunch of crap that distracts from the really important stuff. At least that is the argument of Erik Reece, a guest writer for the Washington Post, who goes even further in urging that Christians reject faith for a radical social agenda instead.

The fact is, American Christianity has historically been focused so obsessively on the Nicene Creed -- which says Jesus was the son of God, who was crucified for our sins and rose from the grave three days later -- that it never made much room for the actual teachings of this radical Jewish street preacher.

This is why I'm against Easter. It celebrates the death of Jesus nearly to the exclusion of his life. If the Easter miracle can save us from this life, then why bother with the harder work of enacting the kingdom of God here? It is, after all, much harder.

Which brings me back to that word faith. I believe it plays such a disproportionate role in mainstream American Christianity, be it in the rock and roll mega-churches or the humbler places were I worshipped as a child, because it is a belief in what one cannot see. But that belief -- that faith in a salvational Christ -- is what will guarantee everlasting life. But when such faith is lost, as in my case, what am I left with?
I'm left with the teachings of Jesus -- words so radical, they got him killed, words so radical, they might still bring about the end of empire and the beginning of the kingdom of God.

Of course, Reece ignores a central problem with his thesis. If, indeed, the resurrection did not happen and Jesus was merely a radical preacher who got killed for his trouble, who cares what he said? Absent the Gospel message of the birth, death, and resurrection of the Word Made Flesh, there really isn’t any “there” there. Jesus then becomes but one more exponent of a radical utopianism who was scorned and rejected by the establishment of his day. – and what makes his words any more worth following than those of Buddha, Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard? Indeed, it is only the great miracle celebrated by Christians the world over that gives the obscure preacher from Nazareth an eternal significance that makes him and his words worthy of veneration two millennia after those events.

My question – why would the Washington Post pick this time of the year for this message? What other religion would the paper seek to denigrate and deny during its holiest season? Indeed, isn’t the decision a telling one about the bias of the paper and its religion editors, Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn?

Posted by: Greg at 12:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.

There might be some real violence and persecution of the BahaÂ’is then.

Dozens of Muslim villagers have attacked the homes of members of the minority Baha'i religion in southern Egypt, hurling firebombs and denouncing them as "enemies of God," human rights groups said Thursday.
The attacks began Saturday after a prominent Egyptian media commentator denounced a Baha'i activist in a television appearance as an "apostate" and called for her to be killed.

The Baha'i religion was founded in the 1860s by a Persian nobleman, Baha'u'llah, whom the faithful regard as the most recent in a line of prophets that included Buddha, Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad. Muslims reject the faith because they believe Muhammad was God's final prophet, and Baha'is have been persecuted in the Middle East.

Not only that, but the good peaceful Muslim police didn’t want to interfere with all the good peaceful Muslims who were attacking religious minorities. After all, the Baha’is are heretics and apostates in the eyes of good peaceful Muslims – and such folks really do bring such violence upon themselves in the eyes of good peaceful Muslims.

Could you imagine what would have happened, though, if Islam were not a religion that respects religious freedom and urges peaceful behavior in its followers?

Posted by: Greg at 03:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 2 kb.

Shhhh! DonÂ’t offend the Muslims or you are going to jail for a violation of international law.

The U.N.Â’s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism.

The proposal put forward by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic countries — with the backing of Belarus and Venezuela — had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.

A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven nations, mostly Western, opposed the resolution, and 13 countries abstained.

And remember – Muslims have repeatedly told us that any criticism of Islam, the Quran, and Muhammad constitutes defamation of their religion. This effectively means that this measure will ban any negative comments about the religion of jihad and decapitation or its false prophet. The time has come for the civilized peoples of the world to stand up and oppose such efforts to silence those who speak the truth about Islam, the greatest threat to human rights in the world today – because it is only a small step from imprisoning critics to beheading them.

But as for me, I'm proud to be an international criminal for speaking the truth.

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Just a couple of quick notes about the sorts of things going on in the name of "The Religion of I'm Gonna Cut Your Head Off, Infidel Dog".

First, this example of fatherly love for a daughter.

We are all too familiar with the persecution of Christians in countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Yet sitting in front of me is a British woman whose life has been threatened in this country solely because she is a Christian. Indeed, so real is the threat that the book she has written about her experiences has had to appear under an assumed name.

The book is called The Imam’s Daughter because “Hannah Shah” is just that: the daughter of an imam in one of the tight-knit Deobandi Muslim Pakistani communities in the north of England. Her father emigrated to this country from rural Pakistan some time in the 1960s and is, apparently, a highly respected local figure.

He is also an incestuous child abuser, repeatedly raping his daughter from the age of five until she was 15, ostensibly as part of her punishment for being “disobedient”. At the age of 16 she fled her family to avoid the forced marriage they had planned for her in Pakistan. A much, much greater affront to “honour” in her family’s eyes, however, was the fact that she then became a Christian – an apostate. The Koran is explicit that apostasy is punishable by death; thus it was that her father the imam led a 40-strong gang – in the middle of a British city – to find and kill her.

Yep -- the incestuous rapist religious leader was at the head of a mob that planned on beheading this young woman for the "crime" of exercising her fundamental human right to determine her own religion and practice it freely. This is but one more example that flies in the face of the oft-repeated claim that Islam teaches that there shall be no compulsion in religion. If such is the case, then someone ought to tell the paragon of Islamic manhood of Islam who led that murderous mob, a religious leader in the Islamic community, about that particular tenet of the Muslim faith.

Still, Hannah Shah does seem to have come out of her experience of Islam much better than Aasiya Z. Hassan -- whose 'moderate Muslim" husband entered a plea of Not Guilty in a Buffalo courtroom to charges of murder after he beheaded her.

Of course, it isn't just those who have had the misfortune to be born and raised Muslim who are subjected to violence for daring to act in a manner contrary with the barbaric tenets of that faith and the sharia law it inspires.

A Christian minister in London who has clashed with Muslims on his television show says he was brutally attacked by three men who warned him, "if you go back to the studio, weÂ’ll break your legs," the Daily Mail reported on Sunday.

The newspaper said Reverend Noble Samuel was driving to his studio when a car pulled over in front of him. A man got out and came over to ask him directions.

"He put his hand into my window, which was half open, and grabbed my hair and opened the door," Samuel said. "He grabbed my cross and pulled it off and it fell on the floor. He was swearing. The other two men came from the car and took my laptop and Bible."

While the article goes on to describe the perpetrators as "three Asian men", please be aware that this is British PC-speak from southern Asia -- and in this case undoubtedly Muslims. After all, you can be reasonably certain that the perps were not Buddhists or Shintoists, because they would have no reason to attempt to intimidate a Christian opponent of Islam into silence.

But of course, such acts of violence against those of us who oppose the teachings of Islam and the atrocities committed in its name may soon face a different sort of retribution for the exercise of our civil liberties and human rights -- criminal charges mandated by the UN.

Egypt sought to outmanoeuvre Canada at the United Nations Human Rights Council Friday as it began pushing for a "free-speech" resolution the West says deviates from traditional norms.

Egyptian diplomats effectively hijacked the recurring measure Canada has traditionally sponsored by acting three months before their Canadian counterparts were preparing to move.

* * *

The Egyptian draft expresses "concern" at what it calls a "rise of instances of abuse [of the right of freedom of speech]," and highlights a need for "limitations [on that right]." It also calls on countries to co-operate with the Special Rapporteur by handing over "all (requested) necessary information."

"The text of the (Egyptian) resolution is pretty much what one would expect from a country that throws its bloggers in jail for no reason at all," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based monitoring group UN Watch.

At its heart, the proposal calls for laws restricting speech which insults and denigrates a religious faith -- and singles out Islam as the specific faith that needs this protection. Interestingly enough, it is written in such a way that the post you are reading would be illegal as a matter of international law -- but Muslim religious texts that refer to Christians and Jews as pigs and monkeys would be exempt, as would the repetition of the blasphemous (from a Christian perspective) claims that Jesus was a mere man, did not die on the cross, did not rise from the dead, and will return in the future to destroy Christianity and condemn Christians to Hell. On the other hand, blasphemy as defined by Islam would be illegal. So if such a measure is ever accepted as a part of international law, expect freedom of speech and religion to become meaningless concepts -- and for Americans to become subject to Islamic law and not the laws and Constitution of the United States.

Posted by: Greg at 04:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1002 words, total size 6 kb.

She obviously is getting what she has coming to her under Islamic law -- after all, she did accept an unaccompanied ride from a man who was not her relative.

Saudi judge has ordered a woman should be jailed for a year and receive 100 lashes after she was gang-raped, it was claimed last night.

The 23-year-old woman, who became pregnant after her ordeal, was reportedly assaulted after accepting a lift from a man.

He took her to a house to the east of the city of Jeddah where she was attacked by him and four of his friends throughout the night.

She later discovered she was pregnant and made a desperate attempt to get an abortion at the King Fahd Hospital for Armed Forces.

According to the Saudi Gazette, she eventually 'confessed' to having 'forced intercourse' with her attackers and was brought before a judge at the District Court in Jeddah.

He ruled she had committed adultery - despite not even being married - and handed down a year's prison sentence, which she will serve in a prison just outside the city.

She is still pregnant and will be flogged once she has had the child.

But let me remind you that we here in the West should not make any negative judgment about nations or religions that countenance such barbaric practices -- that would be hateful, ethnocentric, and imperialistic. After all, Islam had something worthwhile to offer the world a millennium ago, so who are we to judge it simply because it remains mired in that time period? WRONG! Civilized people must speak out as one against such things.

I'm curious -- where are the cries of outrage from the feminists of the world? What does Barack Obama think about this disgusting action, and will he have Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton voice our nation's revulsion at treating the victims of crime as criminals.

H/T Gateway Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

There is no doubt that this action by a Brazilian prelate is controversial.

A Brazilian archbishop says all those who helped a child rape victim secure an abortion are to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

The girl, aged nine, who lives in the north-eastern state of Pernambuco, became pregnant with twins.

It is alleged that she had been sexually assaulted over a number of years by her stepfather.

The excommunication applies to the child's mother and the doctors involved in the procedure.

The pregnancy was terminated on Wednesday.

It is also beyond doubt that the action was correct under the Code of Canon Law.

Can. 1398: A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

And under Canon 1398, the archbishop arguably needs do nothing – the excommunication was automatic when the abortion is procured. Indeed, it would appear to apply to all of those who materially participated in the act.

Now one might argue with the position of the Catholic Church on abortion. I do not, for abortion is always the intentional taking of an innocent human life.

One may argue with the appropriateness of the sanction. I do not – having chosen to leave the Catholic Church some years ago, I do not have a dog in the fight over what is essentially an internal regarding the discipline of the Church.

But I remind folks of one thing – excommunication is intended to be a tool of rehabilitation as much as it is an instrument of punishment. In a case like this one, the rarely applied sanction is intended to acknowledge a grievous violation of the laws of God, and to call those punished back into full communion with Rome. Rather than cruel, one may therefore argue that the sanction is a merciful one.

Posted by: Greg at 01:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

A gathering of Muslim leaders in Turkey is calling for a “third front” in the worldwide jihad.

The conference, dubbed the Global Anti-Aggression Campaign, also gave impetus to Sunni clerics concerned about the growing power of Hezbollah, the Shia movement backed by Iran, which rose to international prominence in its own war with Israel in 2006.

"Gaza is a gift," the Saudi religious scholar Mohsen al-Awajy told me. He and other delegates repeatedly referred to the Gaza war as "a victory".

"Gaza," he continued, "gives us power, it solves our differences. We are all now in a unified front against Zionism."

In closed meetings after sessions delegates focussed on the creation of a "third Jihadist front" - the first two being Afghanistan and Iraq. The intensity of the Israeli attack had "awakened all Muslims," Mr Awajy claimed.

"Palestine is a legitimate theatre of operations for jihad (holy war)," he added.

Let us clarify – based upon the Quran, history, and the words of those in attendance at this conference, this is nothing less than a call for the extermination of the Israeli people.

The time has come for every person in every free society to pick a side.

The choice is clear,

Side with the one liberal democratic state in the Middle East. Or side with the forces of seventh-century barbarism combined with modern weaponry and terrorist methods.

Because once they are done with the Jews, the next target will be the liberal democratic nations of the West – or at least those which have not submitted to dhimmitude.

So do we in the West stand with Israel – or with the terrorists?

I know which side IÂ’m on.

And you?

Posted by: Greg at 12:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

There have been honor killings by Muslims in this country in the past. They have been few and far between -- and generally involved unassimilated Muslim immigrant parents who have murdered their Americanized daughters for thinking that they had the freedom to live like Americans here in America -- especially daughters born here in the US with US citizenship.

This case is different -- and all the more disturbing because of the differences.

Orchard Park police are investigating a particularly gruesome killing, the beheading of a woman, after her husband — an influential member of the local Muslim community — reported her death to police Thursday.

Police identified the victim as Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37. Detectives have charged her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder.

"He came to the police station at 6:20 p.m. [Thursday] and told us that she was dead," Orchard Park Police Chief Andrew Benz said late this morning.

Muzzammil Hassan told police that his wife was at his business, Bridges TV, on Thorn Avenue in the village. Officers went to that location and discovered her body.

Muzzammil Hassan is the founder and chief executive officer of Bridges TV, which he launched in 2004, amid hopes that it would help portray Muslims in a more positive light.

Well, I don't know that I would say that Muzzammil Hassan has managed to portray Muslims in a more positive light -- but I do believe he has managed to portray Islamic culture in a more accurate light. Mrs. Hassan was seeking a divorce, and had already received an order of protection to protect her from further violence by her husband. And so, as happens so often in Muslim communities worldwide, Hassan murdered his wife in an attempt to restore his honor -- something which is sanctioned by sharia law and Muslim religious leaders around the world.

Newsbusters notes this article about the sort of programming common on "moderate" BridgesTV.

BridgesTV might have had the aim of trying to improve the image of Muslims, but over two years ago, Steve Stalinsky of MEMRI outlined in the now-defunct New York Sun that the network featured Wahhabi anti-Christian and anti-Jewish sermons from Saudi TV broadcasts, including English subtitles. Stalinsky also noted that Donald Conover, one of the main hosts on the network, discussed “the power of the ‘Jewish lobby’” and urged Muslims to vote for Democrats during an interview with a Saudi newspaper in 2006.

Sounds like the same old Islamic hatemongering offered up in prettier packaging. Interestingly enough, though, such programming did win BridgesTV and Hassan an award from one "civil rights" organization -- the terrorist-linked Council on American-Islamic relations (CAIR).

Muzzammil Hassan receives award from CAIR-PA Chairman Iftekhar Hussain and CAIR National Chairman Parvez Ahmed (H/T LGF)

Daniel Pipes offers more information about BridgesTV.

I wonder -- will the MSM cover this story as it deserves? Or will we of the blogosphere have to do it for them?

More at Ace of Spades, Jawa Report, Power Line, LGF, Gateway Pundit, Debbie Schlussel, Jihad Watch, Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 06:56 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 5 kb.

As most folks know, Boston College is a Catholic college founded by and run by Jesuits. It shouldn't come as a surprise, then, that the school might have something of a Catholic ethos, right? Well, a decision by college officials to publicly express the school's Catholic nature has aroused howls of outrage by those who consider such expressions of the Catholic faith by a Catholic institution to be insensitive to non-Catholics.

Some Boston College professors and students are raising a holy ruckus over the Catholic school’s return to its religious roots by hanging crucifixes in all its classrooms, calling the move “offensive” and a break from the Jesuit tradition of tolerance.

“There is no choice if you don’t think it’s appropriate. You can’t turn it around,” said biology professor Dan Kirschner, faculty adviser for BC’s chapter of Hillel, a Jewish student group. “I think it is being insensitive to the people of other faith traditions here.”

Amir Hoveyda, head of BC’s chemistry department, blasted the school in an e-mail to the Herald for “not being interested in an exchange with its faculty members.”

In an interview with the college newspaper, The Observer, which broke the story, Hoveyda described the crucifixes as “offensive” and the university’s actions as “anti-intellectual.”

“I can hardly imagine a more effective way to denigrate the faculty of an educational institution,” he is quoted as saying. “The insult is particularly scathing, since such symbols were installed without discussion . . . in a disturbingly surreptitious manner.”

Now wait just one minute. This is, at the end of the day, a Catholic institution run by a Catholic religious order. It is not unreasonable for the school to therefore make some expression of its Catholic identity -- and a crucifix in the classroom is really a pretty minimal intrusion of Catholicism into daily life on campus.

To those who have an objection to crucifixes in classrooms at a Catholic college, I have a suggestion -- try a non-Catholic school instead.

Posted by: Greg at 08:15 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

And so the light of freedom continues to dim around the world lest the followers of the decidedly no-peaceful “Religion of Peace” become outraged.

The editor and publisher of a top English-language Indian daily have been arrested on charges of "hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims.
The Statesman's editor Ravindra Kumar and publisher Anand Sinha were detained in Calcutta after complaints.

Muslims said they were upset with the Statesman for reproducing an article from the UK's Independent daily in its 5 February edition.

The article was entitled: "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?"
It concerns the erosion of the right to criticise religions.

In it, the author, Johann Hari, writes: "I don't respect the idea that we should follow a 'Prophet' who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him."

Now those are historical facts, attested to by Muslim sources. Why is it that stating that one is unwilling to follow the teachings of such a depraved individual constitutes a criminal offense? I personally think it constitutes common sense, as well as evidence that one adheres to superior system of moral values.

Interestingly enough, there have been no attempts to prosecute those who claim that Jesus was not the Son of God but merely a prophet, that he is inferior to Muhammad, and that he was a follower of the teachings of Muhammad even before the coming of that false prophet. As a Christian I am outraged by such statements, which are part and parcel of Islam and which hurt my religious feelings those of many other followers of Christ around the world. Could it be because we don’t find it necessary to riot and murder when we hear such offensive views expressed, but that we instead respect the basic human right to speak and believe free of government oppression or coercion – or the threat of violence by the followers of a barbaric faith that demands respect that it neither earns nor deserves.

Posted by: Greg at 01:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

Because if a woman is brutally forced to have sex against her will, she is guilty of a crime under Islamic law. After all – she should never have gotten in a vehicle alone with a man who was not a relative, so the whole thing is really her fault.

A Saudi judge has ordered a woman should be jailed for a year and receive 100 lashes after she was gang-raped, it was claimed last night.

The 23-year-old woman, who became pregnant after her ordeal, was reportedly assaulted after accepting a lift from a man.

He took her to a house to the east of the city of Jeddah where she was attacked by him and four of his friends throughout the night.

Of course, this will not make the American media, which is much too cowardly to result on the sort of stuff that constitutes Islamic “civilization”. After all, learning about this atrocity might cause some folks to have lower respect for Islam, and that just won’t do.

Posted by: Greg at 01:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the chief exporters of radical fundamentalist Islam has made it quite clear that religious freedom is not an option in within its borders.

A Saudi Arabian official says mosques can be the only places of worship in his country, rejecting pressure to change heavy restrictions on religious besides Islam.

Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's holiest sites, implements a strict version of Islamic law.

It told a United Nations meeting that the kingdom allows other religions in private.

But the vice president of the Saudi human rights commission said Friday that establishing houses of worship for non-Islamic religions was too sensitive an issue.

Zaid Al-Hussain tells the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva that there could be no debate. Other countries have urged Saudi Arabia to abolish laws that breach basic human rights such as freedom from discrimination on the basis of religion or belief.

I guess we should not be too surprised. After all, Saudi Arabia has a piss-poor record on human rights in general – why should anyone expect it to suddenly go against one of the fundamental tenets of the faith that is at the root of that hostility to human rights? After all, Saudi Arabia is also one of those nations seeking to use the UN to curtail freedom of speech internationally when it is used to speak negatively about Islam, seeking to move the world forward into the seventh-century Hijaz.

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

We canÂ’t offend the Muslims, can we.

A cricket team has been forced to change its name after angry complaints from Muslims and Jews.

The Middlesex Crusaders, who have played under the name for almost 10 years, will play next season as The Panthers.

Bosses at the county club acted after protests about the name from Jewish and Muslim communities, who said they felt it was a reference to the religious wars waged by Christians in Europe against other faiths.

Let’s be honest here – the Crusades were not against “other faiths”. It was waged – rightly – against one other faith which had engaged in centuries of armed aggression against other faiths and was intent upon denying Christians access to their holy sites.

And we all know what that aggressive religion of non-peace was – and, sadly, remains until this day.

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm not a Mormon. Indeed, I've made any number of criticisms of Mormon theology and the flawed historical claims of the LDS Church. But never would I argue that Mormons, as a whole, are anything less than exemplary Americans (indeed, as a rule they are exemplary human beings).

On the other hand, Hollywood luminary Tom Hanks recently did exactly that -- based upon the overwhelming support for traditional marriage by Mormons during the election contest over California's Proposition 8.

Now he has apologized -- while not apologizing at all.

Here's his statement.

Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California's Proposition 8 as "un-American." I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination. But everyone has a right to vote their conscience — nothing could be more American. To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are "un-American" creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use "un- American" lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have.

Sincerely,

Tom Hanks

Let's break that down.

Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California's Proposition 8 as "un-American."

Yes, you did -- and in the process singled out members of a relatively small religion as the guilty parties in the passing of that amendment to the California Constitution. You know, sort of like Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's defeat in the First World War.

I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination.

Interestingly enough, the overwhelming majority of Americans and courts appear to disagree with you, Tom. Not that the fact you are in such a small minority makes you un-American or anything -- merely out of step with the American people like most of your Hollywood liberal clique.

But everyone has a right to vote their conscience — nothing could be more American.

Thank you, Tom Hanks, for acknowledging that the exercise of a fundamental right under our system of government is not un-American.

To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are "un-American" creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement.

Yeah, it does create more division -- and it is also indicative of the degree of contempt you really have for Mormons, the same contempt you show by making the television series Big Love, with its distorted view of the LDS faithful.

No one should use "un- American" lightly or in haste. I did.

Sorry, Tom, I don't think you are being honest here. Your words seemed to be a rather deliberate, intentional shot at "those people".

I should not have.

You are correct -- you should not have.

Sincerely,

Tom Hanks

Sincerely? I don't think so. After all, your "apology" fails to actually apologize for having defamed our fellow citizens of the LDS faith. You don't say that your statement was incorrect, false, and defamatory -- you merely say that now was not the time for people to cast such aspersions. At no time do you actually say that you were incorrect when you made that statement, and express regret for stirring defaming the many fine Americans who are Mormons.

So friends, don't be fooled by reports that Tom Hanks has apologized to Mormons -- because the only apology offered is for the words he chose, not the essential meaning of those words.

H/T Ace, Jawa Report, Hot Air, Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 04:45 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 608 words, total size 4 kb.

No, not Islam – even though we have been under terrorist assault by Muslims for years.

No, Tom Hanks has declared that Mormons are un-American – for daring to oppose gay marriage.

Tom Hanks, Executive Producer for HBO’s controversial polygamist series “Big Love,” made his feelings toward the Mormon Church’s involvement in California's Prop 8 (which prohibits gay marriage) very clear at the show’s premiere party on Wednesday night.

“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them.

So let’s make this really clear – Tom Hanks (and many of his Hollywood buddies) believe that participation in the democratic process by members of the LDS Church is un-American. On the other hand, he would be among the first to accuse those who question the loyalty and patriotism of members of America’s Muslim community of profiling and engaging in religious bigotry, despite the fact that there have been multiple terrorism convictions of American Muslims.

And of course, Tom Hanks would have been one of those who reacted in outrage to even the mildest questions about the loyalty of those who failed to embrace AmericaÂ’s defensive war against the jihadi swine who have repeatedly indicated their desire to destroy this nation. But now he denigrates the Americanism of one of those with whom he disagrees on a question of public policy and engage in legal, constitutionally protected activities to further their policy goals. Dare I suggest that HanksÂ’ position on the matter is the epitome of unAmericanism?

Interestingly enough, by the way, Hanks (and many of his fellow travelers on the gay marriage issue) is quick to blame a religious minority that accounts for no more than 2% of the population of California for the passage of Prop 8. Could it be that he realizes that an attack upon the Catholic Church and the many black churches that actively supported Prop 8 would do grave harm to his career, while an attack upon Mormonism would do him no harm and might even increase the revenues he makes on his religiously bigoted anti-Mormon television series, Big Love?

Posted by: Greg at 01:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.

After all, this bus ad by a Muslim group engages in an explicit act of blasphemy against both Judaism and Christianity. Yet unlike the sort of weÂ’ve seen when someone dares speak less than deferentially about Islam or Muhammad, this is the most outrage shown by folks who object to Muslim blasphemy against these two great faiths.

There's a new front in the conflict between Jew and Muslim: Broward County buses.

Fifty of the county's 290-bus fleet have been chugging around area streets for the past several weeks with a message that might seem more oblique than inflammatory. Black letters on a white backdrop proclaim, "ISLAM: The Way of Life of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad."

The $60,000 ad was paid for by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

"We owe it to our fellow Americans to let them know that Islam stands for peace," said Altaf Ali, director of CAIR's South Florida chapter. "Muslims are here and Muslims are part and parcel of the United States."

Well, weÂ’ll set aside the fact that Altaf Ali, spokesman for the terrorist front group sponsoring the ad, is lying about the nature of Islam. WeÂ’ve seen enough of what Islam really stands for over the last couple of decades to know precisely how false his statement is.

But more to the point, Jesus was not a Muslim. Neither was Moses. And as for Abraham, the closest that Muslims can get to making their claim about him is that the Bible does indicate that he was the father of Ishmael – of whom it is written in Genesis that his hand would be raised against every man, a tradition which the spiritual descendants of Ishmael continue to this day with their acts of terror. And given that the Quran repeatedly contradicts the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments, it becomes impossible for any Christian or Jew who gives the matter serious consideration to accept the notion that the faith which grows from Muhammad’s book is truly kindred to ours.

But be that as it may, there is a bigger question. Broward County officials claim that the ad “didn't violate guidelines against ads that demean religions”. Really? I wonder, then – would Broward County allow for ads which Muslims found blasphemous, or would county officials determine that the offense taken by Muslims was sufficient to merit shutting down such a message? Maybe someone should consider trying to place an ad containing one of the Danish Muhammad cartoons on the buses to see exactly how open that open forum really is.

Posted by: Greg at 03:17 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

When any sort of vandalism occurs at or near a mosque, it is major news indicative of "Islamophobia". But where is the outcry over this assault on a synagogue?

A Molotov cocktail thrown early today against the wall of one of Chicago's oldest synagogues caused minimal physical damage but worried local Jewish officials, who said the incident could be a response to the latest fighting in the Middle East.

"I can't help but think there's a relationship," said Roger Rudich, president of Temple Sholom of Chicago, 3480 N. Lake Shore Drive.
No one was hurt in the arson that police are investigating as a hate crime. Bomb and arson detectives were at the scene Monday afternoon and the investigation was ongoing, said Chicago police officer Daniel O'Brien.

O'Brien said the fire "extinguished itself, nothing ever caught fire." No suspect was in custody as of Monday afternoon, he said.

"The offender drove off and made a derogatory statement" to a witness, and police were working to obtain and review surveillance equipment in the area, said O'Brien.

How has the media responded? With fewer than 40 news reports nationwide -- and most of the reports local ones.

I guess anti-Semitism is no longer high on the priority list for the media -- or maybe they just think the Jews are getting what they have coming to them, and that hate only counts as hate if it involves the "right" victims.

H/T Debbie Schlussel

Posted by: Greg at 04:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

Could it be "honor killing"?

After all, consider the scenario here and tell me that it is not th emost obvious explanation of what we see here.

Sahar Daftary would have turned 24 on Christmas Day -- but instead of celebrating her life, family members of the British beauty queen mourned her death, laying flowers and lighting candles outside the apartment building from which she plunged 150 feet to her death.

Police say the case is under investigation and have not ruled out a suicide or accident, but last week they arrested and released on bail Rashid Jamil, 33, the man Daftary married in 2007 in a lavish Muslim ceremony, but not under British law.

Daftary was found in critical condition last Saturday after Jamil called police to his waterfront apartment building. She plunged 12 stories from his waterfront flat in Salford Quays, Manchester, and later died in the hospital.

What happened? It would certainly appear that Jamil murdered his Daftary because she objected to his continued marriage to a previous wife -- and his sexual assault perpetrated upon her this spring. She wanted a divorce under Islamic law (especially important since the marriage was not valid civilly and because women have very limited rights to initiate divorce under sharia), and it would appear that he instead chose to dissolve the bond in a different fashion -- via murder of a wife whose refusal to submit to him tainted his honor.

What a pity that the MSM is unwilling to label such killings what they clearly are -- out of a misguided desire, no doubt, to avoid casting the religion that justifies such barbarism in a negative light.

Posted by: Greg at 12:34 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

For those who wish to argue that Islam is merely another path to God, please recognize the blasphemy that the Quran contains.

“In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful, Say (O Muhammad): He is Allah, (the) One and Only. Allah, the Eternal, the Absolute. He begetteth not, nor was begotten, and there is none like unto him.” -- Surah 112:1-4

Where were these words of blasphemy "revealed" by the false prophet Muhammad displayed? In the city of Nazareth, directly across from the Basilica of the Annunciation. You know, one of the holiest sites in Christendom, at the spot where Christians believe that Gabriel the Archangel informed the Virgin Mary that she was to bear the Son of God without knowing man. And when? At Christmas, when we of the Christian faith mark the miracle of the Incarnation, when the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us.

As NazarethÂ’s Christians prepare to celebrate Christmas, they are playing down the appearance of a confrontational Islamic banner that challenges an elemental Christian belief.

Journalists visiting the city saw two large banners--one in English, one in Arabic--hanging in the plaza in front of the Basilica of the Annunciation, with a verse from the Koran (112:1-4) contradicting the New Testament proclamation that Jesus is the “only begotten” of God.

“In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful, Say (O Muhammad): He is Allah, (the) One and Only. Allah, the Eternal, the Absolute. He begetteth not, nor was begotten, and there is none like unto him,” the banner reads.

Nazareth's mayor refused to take action against this provocation against Christians during one of the two holiest time of the year for Christians. He claims he did so to avoid giving Islamic radicals an opportunity to spread their malign beliefs further. However, I wonder whether he would have allowed a sign declaring Muhammad to be a false prophet to be hung in front of the local mosque during Ramadan, or whether the Muslim population of the city would have been expected to peacefully accept the calculated insult. Indeed, would not such an anti-Islamic sign be the cause of riots, both in Nazareth and around the world?

Perhaps the most interesting thing to note is that Christians around the world have not rioted. There have been no attacks on mosques or individual Muslims in retaliation. Moreover, the justifiable outrage at the sign has been confined to the written and spoken word -- something that we have noted time and again is in sharp contrast to the response of Muslims to provocations that are even less extreme. Which faith is, therefore, more accurately described as the religion of peace?

And let's not forget -- the words on that sign are fundamental to the beliefs of Islam. Those words come from the book of lies that Muslims revere as the literal word of Allah, and are held by Muslims to be sacred truth and unchangeable. Is it not therefore clear that Muslims worship some other god than the God of the Old and New Testaments?

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 526 words, total size 3 kb.

Let us not forget why we mark this day each year in celebration of the fact that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

It is not that this priest started a ministry per se -- it is that he was forbidden to engage in any public ministry due to his history of misconduct.

A priest accused of having sexual conversations with teenage boys has been excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix for starting his own ministry.

The diocese announced Monday that Monsignor Dale Fushek and another Catholic priest who helped open the ministry are now prohibited from receiving church sacraments.

Fushek was the second highest-ranking administrator in the diocese. He is awaiting trial on charges including assault and indecent exposure over conversations from the 1980s and '90s.

He had been placed on paid leave, but his salary was cut off after Fushek started the ministry in defiance of the bishop's orders.

The problem here? Defiance of the bishop's authority -- and his continuing to publicly act as a priest after suspension for sexual misconduct. The bishop has been acting to protect the faithful from a sexual predator -- and has no applied the ultimate sanction in an effort to get Fushek to comply with his authority. Too bad the Washington Post didn't do a better job of covering the situation -- but then again, there isn't as much news in the Church getting it right on sex abuse.

UPDATE: I did a little furhter checking -- it appears that there was a more fundamental reason for the excommunication. Not only was he violating the restriction upon exercising public ministry (thus violating his promise to obey his bishop taken at ordination), but the ministry he and a laicized priest set up is actually a schismatic religious congregation with teachings contrary to those of the Catholic Church. Seems to me that the only surprise here is that anyone would be surprised by the excommunication.

Posted by: Greg at 11:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

There are two ways of looking at this one. On one level, it shows how the imposition of civil rights laws on private entities can cause a burden on the exercise of rights by business owners, in this case religious liberty. But if such laws are to exist (and in the case of access for the disabled, I think they should), allowing stuff like this to happen without consequence is unacceptable.

Alun Elder-Brown, a recruitment executive, said he was left feeling "like a piece of dirt" after being barred from bringing the animal into Kirthon Restaurant in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, on religious grounds.

The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association said the decision was illegal under the Disability Discrimination Act and Mr Elder-Brown, 51, is now considering suing the establishment in The Pantiles.

It follows a series of successful prosecutions of Muslim taxi drivers who refused to carry guide dogs in their cars because they considered them unclean on religious grounds.

Mr Elder-Brown was taking his girlfriend out to celebrate her birthday with her five year-old daughter last week when he was told he would have to leave his dog, Finn, tied up outside.

He showed a card issued by the Institute of Environmental Health Officers certifying he and his dog were allowed into any premises but an argument ensued and the owners threatened to call the police if he did not leave.

Oh, yes – the presence o a dog might offend a Muslim, and so the rights of other citizens to freely access a public accommodation under the conditions established by law are once again overriden. Here’s hoping that the Brits will come down hard on those who committed this outrage, as they have in the case of a number of cab drivers playing this same game.

Posted by: Greg at 01:26 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

During my seminary days, I had multiple opportunities to read the work of a great American theologian -- Avery Cardinal Dulles. Word has come today that he has passed from this life into the next, at the age of 90.

Cardinal Avery Dulles, a convert to Roman Catholicism from a prominent American family who was the only U.S. theologian named a cardinal without first becoming a bishop, died Friday. He was 90.

Dulles, a Jesuit, died in an infirmary at Fordham University, where he was a professor for two decades, according to the Rev. Jim Martin of America, a Jesuit magazine that regularly published Dulles' articles.

Pope John Paul II appointed Dulles in 2001 to the College of Cardinals, making him the first American Jesuit and the first U.S. theologian outside of a diocese to be named a cardinal. He was considered the dean of American Catholic theologians.

Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI considered Dulles to be so important that the pontiff made a personal visit to the cardinal while in the United States this spring. There are few who have had such an honor -- but Dulles was an extraordinary man.

When I read Thomas Merton's The Seven Storey Mountain, I noted a passage regarding the large number of veterans attracted to the priesthood and/or monastic life following the end of the Second World War. Like Merton, Dulles was one of them, converting to Catholicism in 1946 and eventually being ordained a priest in 1956.

During Vatican II he was seen as one of the great progressives, but in his later years he was often counted among the traditionalists (quite similar to the paths taken by Bishop Karol Wotyla and Father Joseph Ratzinger, better known as Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI) -- an example, as one of my seminary professors pointed out, that the purpose of the Council may have been to modernize the Church, but not to change it in its essentials.

Dulles was often noted for his great intellect as well as his great personal holiness. Perhaps the best tribute I can give is to quote from his last lecture, one which he was too weak to deliver himself but for which he was present this past April.

"The most important thing about my career, and many of yours, is the discovery of the pearl of great price, the treasure hidden in the field -- the Lord Jesus himself."

And to that I add a hearty "AMEN".

Posted by: Greg at 05:00 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.