I’ve never been a fan of the specialty license plates that so many states offer. I didn’t like it when alumni associations began selling them. I was disturbed when sports teams and special events got to market them. And all of the “special funds” that benefit just seem to be a bit silly.

But this one disturbs me in a special way.

Florida drivers can order more than 100 specialty license plates celebrating everything from manatees to the Miami Heat, but one now under consideration would be the first in the nation to explicitly promote a specific religion.

The Florida Legislature is considering a specialty plate with a design that includes a Christian cross, a stained-glass window and the words "I Believe."

Rep. Edward Bullard, the plate's sponsor, said people who "believe in their college or university" or "believe in their football team" already have license plates they can buy. The new design is a chance for others to put a tag on their cars with "something they believe in," he said.

If the plate is approved, Florida would become the first state to have a license plate featuring a religious symbol that's not part of a college logo. Approval would almost certainly face a court challenge.

The problem with the state manufacturing the plate is that it "sends a message that Florida is essentially a Christian state" and, second, gives the "appearance that the state is endorsing a particular religious preference," said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

Now I don’t necessarily agree with the reasoning behind the ACLU’s opposition – but I agree with their opposition. There is just no need to put a crosses and stained glass on a license plate to display your faith.

Get a bumper sticker. Put a couple of the silver “fish” logos on your trunk. Have the vehicle painted up like the Sistine Chapel for all I care. Just not this.

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

This will certainly not do any good in healing the divisions within the Episcopal Church -- or the worldwide Anglican community.

Bishop Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal prelate whose consecration led conservatives to split from the church, said in an interview on Thursday that he and his partner of 20 years were planning a civil union ceremony to be held in his home church in the diocese of New Hampshire in June.

Bishop Robinson said that by scheduling the ceremony for June, he did not intend to further inflame conservatives just before the Anglican Communion gathers in August in Cambridge, England, for the Lambeth Conference, which happens only once every 10 years.

He planned his civil union for June, he said, because he wanted to provide some legal protection to his partner and his children before he left for England for the conference. Bishop Robinson has received death threats, and he wore a bulletproof vest under his vestments at his consecration in 2003.

“We could have, I suppose, just gone to the town clerk and had that signed,” he said, “but, you know, I’m a religious person, and every major event in my life has been marked with some kind of liturgy and giving thanks to God.”

Robinson, whose selection as bishop despite living in flagrant disregard of biblical standards of morality, has been a key flash-point in the conflict between traditionalists and modernists within Anglicanism -- to the point that the Archbishop of Canterbury excluded Robinson from the gathering of Anglican bishops this summer. This deliberately provocative move on Robinson's part -- having what amounts to a gay marriage ceremony in one of his churches -- will only serve to bring that issue to a head. It certainly serves a a sign that the Episcopal Church is out of step with the overwhelming consensus of worldwide Anglicanism. Will it be the cause of the final separation of the two?

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

Remember -- religious tolerance only runs one way when it comes to Islam.

Muslims converting to Christianity is a thorny issue almost anywhere in the world, but recently U.K. media attention has focused in on the persecution of former Muslims not in foreign land but in its own backyard.

Former Muslims who convert to Christianity are threatened with disownment and violence at the hands of their own family members – much like in parts of the Middle East. But the difference is these families don’t reside in a theocratic society, but in a western country that upholds religious freedom – including the right to convert to another faith.

BBC, U.K.Â’s leading news network, featured several stories and programs in recent months devoted to the issue of persecution of Christian converts from Islam. In its latest feature on Monday, it highlighted real cases of England-based Muslims who convert to Christianity and the consequences that follow.

Sophia (not her real name) is from a Pakistani background but lives in east London. Her family has put extreme pressure on her to return to Islam since she converted to Christianity.

“They kept saying, ‘The punishment is death, do you know the punishment is death?” she recalled to BBC.

She ended up running away from home, but her mother found her and showed up at her baptism.

“I got up to get baptized, that’s when my mother got up, ran to the front and tried to pull me out of the water,” Sophia said.

“My brother was really angry. He reacted and phoned me on my mobile and just said, ‘I’m coming down to burn that church,’” she remembered.

Physical assault -- threats of arson and murder. Not in one of the third world backwaters that constitutes the bulk of the Islamic world, but in a civilized country like Great Britain.

I'd love to know -- were Sophia's family members charged or convicted over any of these offenses? After all, terroristic threats and the assault during her baptism are crimes. Or do Muslims get a pass when these are directed against someone who leaves the falsehood of Islam for the truth of Christianity?

But in the end, the answer to that question is not nearly so relevant as the truth revealed by Sophia's story. Religious persecution of Christians continues today -- outside the Christian world and within it -- and it is incumbent upon us to pray for those who take fearlessly take that step into the light of Christ.

Posted by: Greg at 10:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

Starting with how we all tell time and measure our position on the planet.

Muslim scientists and clerics have called for the adoption of Mecca time to replace GMT, arguing that the Saudi city is the true centre of the Earth.

Mecca is the direction all Muslims face when they perform their daily prayers.

The call was issued at a conference held in the Gulf state of Qatar under the title: Mecca, the Centre of the Earth, Theory and Practice.

And we then get some of the most absurd claims -- Mecca is the only place on earth perfectly aligned with true north, and that all scientific truths are contained in the Qu'ran. Oh, yeah -- there was the obligatory swipe at Western imperialism because the British (who perfected the method of measuring longitude) for setting the prime meridian through their country and imposing it on the rest of the world.

So instead Islam once again seeks to impose itself on the rest of the world instead.

Setting aside the arrogance of the claims and demands put forward at the conference, there is no need to make the change. The prime meridian is an arbitrary concept, and making the change demanded would be every bit as expensive as it is silly.

But that such a demand would be made is one more sign of Islam's ultimate goal of imposing itself on the rest of the world -- whether we want it or not.

H/T Malkin, Snapped Shot

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

Gee -- they made arrangements for people to be able to eat in before the papal mass at Yankee Stadium.

Can I get fries with that Mass?

One of the oddest sites inside the grungy concourses at Yankee Stadium was the long concession stand lines of priests and nuns, teenagers and adults waiting to buy chicken fingers, French fries, soda, hot chocolate, popcorn and hotdogs before Mass.

Just imagine how she would have responded to the site at World Youth Day in Denver back in 1993 -- McDonald's was the official food supplier for the event, and had booths set up all around the site of the final mass by Pope John Paul II. Those of us there were making purchases of food and water while we were there -- for some 18 hours before the mass began.

Of course, we did camp out overnight at the mass site, too.

But then again, maybe Jessica Fargen was expecting Benedict CVI to perform a repeat of the miracle of the loaves and fishes.

Posted by: Greg at 10:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Seems that some Muslims are still stewing over the pontiff's decision to use an apropos quote about Islam in a speech in 2006 -- and don't seem very willing to consider that the problem is their's not Pope Benedict's.

At the time, the pope’s remarks prompted violence and expressions of outrage from Muslims abroad. Reactions in the United States were muted, but many Muslims today — even those closely connected to a Roman Catholic institution — remain troubled by the remarks. Their feelings are often complicated, a mixture of respect for the church and wariness about this pope, who will meet with Muslim and other religious leaders in Washington on Thursday.

While many say they continue to feel welcome at Catholic schools and hospitals, the popeÂ’s speech has left an indelible, often negative impression.

“It reflects on him as an intolerant person at that moment,” said Dr. Yusuf Mamdani of Englewood Cliffs, N.J., who is affiliated with St. Vincent’s Hospital Manhattan. “The pope should be beyond these things. I believe a person should respect me.”

Sorry, Dr. Mamdani, but you've got it dead wrong.

The role of the pope is to speak the truth of the Christian faith. He did that, even if that truth makes you uncomfortable.

And if you want to talk about indelible negative impressions, there is a hole in the ground in New York City that I'd like to call your attention to -- as well as a host of other terrorist-related artifacts -- that have left an indelible negative impression of Islam in a way much more striking than the Holy Father's use of an old quote.

And let's remind everybody exactly what was said.

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

Seems to me that this is a legitimate point of view for those of us who reject Islam as a religious innovation not inspired by God.

To the degree that the false scriptures of the false prophet Muhammad lifted long-venerated teachings of Judaism and Christianity and incorporated them into his new faith, there is good contained in Islam. To the degree that Muhammad taught conquest by the sword and violence against non-Muslims, his teachings were undeniably evil and inhuman -- and are indeed properly labeled as Satanic.

Unless, of course, you want to praise 9/11, car bombs, and suicide vests.

In which case we really have nothing further to talk about.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

As the imam preaches a typical sermon of love, peace and tolerance to the followers of the Religion of Peace.

Following are excerpts from an address by Hamas MP and cleric Yunis Al-Astal, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on April 11, 2008.

Yunis Al-Astal: Allah has chosen you for Himself and for His religion, so that you will serve as the engine pulling this nation to the phase of succession, security, and consolidation of power, and even to conquests thorough da'wa and military conquests of the capitals of the entire world. Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our Prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital, which has declared its hostility to Islam, and has planted the brothers of apes and pigs in Palestine in order to prevent the reawakening of Islam – this capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe.

I believe that our children or our grandchildren will inherit our Jihad and our sacrifices, and Allah willing, the commanders of the conquest will come from among them. Today, we instill these good tidings in their souls, and by means of the mosques and the Koran books, and the history of our Prophets, his companions, and the great leaders, we prepare them for the mission of saving humanity from the hellfire on the brink of which they stand.

And let me remind you about the conquest of Constantinople. The many people sold into slavery -- men, women, and children. The churches, including the beautiful Hagia Sophia, desecrated and turned into mosques. The second-class citizenship imposed upon non-Muslims. All in the name of the same Religion of Peace preached by this latter-day jihadi.

When will we in the West declare that the threats and violence in the name of Islam must stop? When will we declare that further attacks upon the civilized world in the name of Islam will result in massive retaliation in response? In other words, when will we finally open our eyes and recognize that we are fighting a war unlike any we have fought in modern times, against an enemy that will not respond to our normal overtures for peace? If we do not win, we in the civilized world will die or (in the words of Star Trek's Borg) be assimilated. The survival of civilization as we know it depends upon our victory.

H/T Jawa Report, Israel Matzav

UPDATE -- 4/142008, 6;25 CDT: Looks like maybe this effort is beginning.

ISN Security Watch reports: "Bosnia and Herzegovina's Federation Anti-Terror Unit on 20 March arrested five men: Rijad Rustempasic, Muhamed Meco, Abdulah Handzic and Edis Velic, all in their early thirties and from Sarajevo, along with Muhamed Ficer, from the central Bosnian city of Bugojno, who was released from custody after questioning.

"The four arrested in Sarajevo were members of the local Wahhabi movement -- the Saudi-based and financed order following a strict interpretation of Islam. Some of the suspects were already well known to the police for their radical activities. The group had been under surveillance for several months by the Federation Anti-Terror Unit and the State Prosecutor's Office.

"Federation Anti-Terror Unit and the State Prosecutor's Office have strong evidence that Rustempasic's group was planning attacks on Catholic Churches and international forces within the country during the Easter holidays." (LINK 1)

The ISN report includes several details that are hugely important:

the suspects were very well armed, having "anti-tank mines, laser sights, electronic equipment, topographic maps and bomb-making manuals".

Gotta love the the boys from the Religion of Blow Your Enemies to Pieces.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Shadowscope, InvestorBlogger, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, D equals S, Nuke Gingrich, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Stageleft, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 708 words, total size 7 kb.

And so tolerant!

A primary school in Amsterdam wished to provide its pupils with an understanding for other cultures. But during a visit to a mosque, the children were told they were dogs.

With a view to developing understanding and respect for other cultures among children, primary school De Horizon regularly organises outings to various religious organisations. The chairman of the El Mouchidine mosque told the children from group 7 (aged 10) and their chaperones however that non-Muslims are dogs.

In a letter to the children's parents, the school expresses its regret at the incident: "We are shocked that during the guided tour, the mosque's chairman told the children and chaperoning parents that non believers were dogs. We consider this statement as unacceptable since we allow our children to partake in this project to develop respect for freedom of religious choice".

I have regularly stated that most Muslims are wonderful, decent people.

I have also stated that some, on the other hand, are nothing more than Islamist swine.

I think it is pretty clear which sort are in charge at the El Mouchidine mosque in Amsterdam.

Posted by: Greg at 10:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

IÂ’d encourage he Pope to make sure that he has plenty of bodyguards when he has that interreligious dialogue with Muslims at the Vatican.

Otherwise he might have a problem with an incident like this one.

KARACHI: Dozens of Muslim workers at a factory in Karachi beat to death a Hindu colleague on Tuesday for alleged blasphemy, officials said.

Jagdish Kumar, 25, was tortured and killed at the garments factory after a debate on religion became heated, police and hospital officials said.

“About 1,500 workers at the factory in the Korangi industrial area beat to death the Hindu worker over [allegations of] blasphemy,” police superintendent Farrukh Bashir said.

And of course, we all know that the appropriate response to someone challenging your religious beliefs is to torture and kill them.

So be careful, anyone who tries to have a debate or discussion with Muslims – you could really lose your head if they lose theirs!

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Whatever theological, cultural and political issues I may have with Islam, I can never countenance the desecration of the graves of war heroes.

Vandals desecrated 148 graves in the Muslim section of a military cemetery in northern France, hanging a pig's head on one of the headstones, police said on Sunday.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy called the attack "a hateful act" and around 100 police were sent to the Notre-Dame de Lorette cemetery near Arras to hunt for clues.

State prosecutor Jean-Pierre Valensi said the vandals struck overnight, daubing insults on the graves.

"They directly referred to Islam and there were also insults directed at the justice minister," Valensi said, referring to Rachida Dati, whose parents came from North Africa.

The desecration came almost exactly a year after youths daubed Nazi inscriptions and swastikas on Muslim tombs in the same cemetery in Ablain Saint-Nazaire.

The role of Muslims in France's military is one often overlooked. During World War I, more than 10% of all Muslim colonial troops who served gave their lives in defense of France. For anyone -- especially any Frenchman -- to now desecrate their graves over current tensions is to dishonor their sacrifice and the history of France.

Posted by: Greg at 10:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

Has the West allowed accommodation of Islam to go so far that common sense is out the window? I'd have to argue that this case shows that it has.

When it comes to avoiding a ban for speeding, the courts hear every excuse in the book.

But yesterday one motorist offered what must be a unique reason why he should keep his licence.

Mohammed Anwar said a ban would make it difficult to commute between his two wives and fulfil his matrimonial duties.

His lawyer told a Scottish court the Muslim restaurant owner has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow - he is allowed up to four under his religion - and sleeps with them on alternate nights.

He also needed his driving licence to run his restaurant in Falkirk, Stirlingshire.

Airdrie Sheriff Court had heard that Anwar was caught driving at 64mph in a 30mph zone in Glasgow, fast enough to qualify for instant disqualification.

Anwar admitted the offence, but Sheriff John C. Morris accepted his plea not to be banned and allowed him to keep his licence.

Instead, he was fined £200 and given six penalty points.

In other words, Scotland's speeding laws do not apply to Muslims -- provided they are going to take advantage of marital prerogatives of a marriage that would be illegal for a non-Muslim.

Will the courts be so accommodating of a non-Muslim business-owner who is headed home to shag his wife on his lunch break? What about someone who is going to get a quickie from his mistress?

One would think that speeding laws would be the last place that islamic exceptionalism would intrude -- but I guess not.

Posted by: Greg at 02:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

The path to recognizing someone as a saint can take decades of centuries, but the cause of John Paul II is well underway three years after his death -- and even his successor seems to have a soft spot for it, as the text of his sermon at yesterday's memorial mass would seem to indicate.

Catholics around the world on Wednesday marked the third anniversary of Pope John Paul's death and Vatican officials said they were receiving a steady stream of pleas from the faithful convinced he was a saint.

Pope Benedict, John Paul's successor, presided at a solemn Mass before tens of thousands of people in St Peter's Square, from the same spot on the steps of the basilica where John Paul's simple wooden coffin lay three years ago.

"For many days, the Vatican basilica and this very square were really the heart of the world," Benedict said in his sermon as members in the crowd waved flags of the late pope's Polish homeland and banners bearing his image.

Benedict did not use the word "saint" in his sermon but said John Paul had "many human and supernatural qualities" and was a mystic endowed with exceptional spiritual sensitivities.

Why the rush on sainthood for the late pontiff? Partly because there is a sense of the faithful on this one -- a general belief among Catholics that the holiness with which the man lived out his life and ministry demonstrates the sanctity of his life. A second reason is the fact that John Paul II lived out his pontificate in the public spotlight like none of his predecessors. It seems his every word and deed was somehow recorded, and so doing the sort of research on those areas is relatively easy compared to looking at the life of some seventeenth century nun in a convent in South America or a missionary in Africa during the 1800s.

I expect we will see his canonization in my lifetime -- a quick response to the call of Santo Subito that arose at his funeral.

Posted by: Greg at 10:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

That exercising a human right guaranteed by both Dutch and international law hurt their business interests?

Dutch businesses warned on Saturday that they would consider suing far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders if his anti-Islam film led to a commercial boycott of Dutch goods, while police said cars were set ablaze and graffiti called for Wilders to be killed.

“A boycott would hurt Dutch exports. Businesses such as Shell, Philips, and Unilever are easily identifiable as Dutch companies. I don’t know if Wilders is rich, or well-insured, but in case of a boycott, we would look to see if we could make him bear responsibility,” Bernard Wientjes, the chairman of the Dutch employers’ organisation VNO-NCW, told the Het Financieel Dagblad newspaper.

Better idea – sue the boycotters, and those who are stirring up REAL hatred against Holand and Wilders. After all, they are the ones who are doing the damage, not Wilders.

Unless, of course, you believe that profits trump human freedom.

UPDATE: Looks like the Dimmification of Holland continues.

The ambassadors of 26 Islamic countries want the Netherlands to investigate whether the film Fitna made by Dutch right-wing populist MP Geert Wilders can be banned. They asked Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen whether it is possible to start legal proceedings against the anti-Islam film. The meeting at the ministry in The Hague was attended by ambassadors of countries including Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Mr Verhagen told the 26 ambassadors he was pleased that responses from the Muslim world up to now had been moderate. He said the public prosecutor was investigating whether any offence had been committed, and the Dutch government clearly distanced itself from the film.

At the same time he called on the ambassadors to ensure Dutch citizens and organisations abroad were protected. "Let's keep heads cool and relations warm," he added. "We know about the concerns and feelings about this film among the international Muslim community, but hurt feelings must never be an excuse for aggression and threats."

I guess the real answer is that Wilders isn't likely to kill anyone, but the most vocal opponents of the film are. As a result, Wilders' rights are the one to be suppressed. See why the Second Amendment is in the US Constitution?

H/T HotAir

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

I will not submit. I will join the international movement to see that Geert Wilders' documentary, Fitna, is freely available.

Here is the Torrent link to the movie.

I have not watched the movie. I may not watch the movie. But I will do my part to help prevent the suppression of the movie.

Bravo to LiveLeak for upholding the same principle.

Free speech trumps the right not to be offended.

UPDATE: The torrent link still works, but LiveLeak was forced to drop their hosting of Fitna. Their statement is as follows.

Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.

Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

Seems to me that a certain segment of the Islamic community just proved Geert Wilders' point -- aided and abetted by certain elements of the liberal media. Good going, Islamo-Fascist scum!

Fortunately, another source exists for the video.

Freedom of speech will not be stopped by seventh-century barbarism.

H/T Michelle Malkin, Hot Air

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, D equals S, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Rant It Up, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 4 kb.

Now a Muslim group is seeking to ban ANOTHER film because they are offended by its depiction of Muhammad.

The only problem is that the film depicts a historical fact attested to in Muslim writings about the life of Muhammad that are considered to be authoritative by islamic scholars.

Former Dutch Labor party politician Ehsan Jami, founder of the Committee of ex-Muslims, said he has produced an anti-Muslim cartoon that will show a sexually aroused prophet Mohammed with his nine-year-old wife. The film is to be released next month and will be called "The Life of Mohammed."

A group of Muslims has seen the film and is going to court in an effort to ban it from being shown, citing it as unacceptable and offensive. Jami said the film would be more shocking than the Danish cartoons two years ago that showed Mohammed wearing a bomb-shaped turban.

Now, some might be offended by the notion of Muhammad sexually aroused -- and given the special liberties he was permitted to take with women due to his status as Prophet, I can't understand why a Muslim would be -- but this is documented in islam's own religious texts. And lest any Muslim think that we Christians would never be subjected to such treatment of Jesus, might I offer the example of the movie The Last Temptation of Christ? Despite its heretical and ahistorical approach to Christ's sexuality, Christians were expected to tolerate the showing of the film, including on the campuses of publicly funded colleges and universities using mandatory student fees. Similarly, murder was not the response to the play Corpus Christi -- there were protests, but no significant acts of violence, and threats made over the film were universally denounced by Christian leaders.

In short, when will Muslims grow up and recognize that human rights trump their desire to have non-Muslims accord the same level of respect and reverence to those things that Muslims hold sacred? That is not a requirement in the free world -- even if it might be in the Muslim world.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, D equals S, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Rant It Up, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:54 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 4 kb.

Can we simply abolish the whole organization now, and deport all its staff from the US, and allow the headquarters to become a crack house, brothel, or overgrown vacant lot -- something of greater social utility than the UN itself? The main "human rights" body of the UN has come out against the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion when Muslims take offense.

The top U.N. rights body on Thursday passed a resolution proposed by Islamic countries saying it is deeply concerned about the defamation of religions and urging governments to prohibit it.

The European Union said the text was one-sided because it primarily focused on Islam.

The U.N. Human Rights Council, which is dominated by Arab and other Muslim countries, adopted the resolution on a 21-10 vote over the opposition of Europe and Canada.

EU countries, including France, Germany and Britain, voted against. Previously EU diplomats had said they wanted to stop the growing worldwide trend of using religious anti-defamation laws to limit free speech.

The document, which was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."

Although the text refers frequently to protecting all religions, the only religion specified as being attacked is Islam, to which eight paragraphs refer.

Interesting how "respect for religion" is defined as "respect for Islam" in this document. Never mind that particular strains of Islam have been a violent pox upon human civilization for most of my lifetime -- we are not supposed to criticize the very elements of Islam that the terrorists themselves use to justify their acts of murder and mayhem. Odd, isn't it, that the UN Human Rights Suppression committee cannot be bothered to denounce the anti-Semitism rife in the Muslim world -- and within the tenets of the Islamic faith itself as defined by the Qu'ran and hadiths.

Heck, maybe these folks will merit serious consideration when they condemn the Islamic practice of killing or imprisoning those who attempt to leave Islam for another religion that better meets their spiritual needs -- or the practice of Saudi Arabia in banning all non-Muslim worship in the country. But then again, maybe such condemnations would constitute "attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."

And the timing of this action -- coinciding with the release of Geert Wilder' Fitna, is transparently an attempt to suppress his human rights.

I wonder -- does this mean my website is now officially condemned by the UN?

MORE AT Hot Air, who notes the following provisions from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Interestingly enough, the Secretary General of the UN has expressed his belief that these rights, though expressed in absolute terms since the earliest days of the UN, really are not implicated by the ongoing attempt by extremist Muslims (and non-extremist Muslims) and their craven dhimmis to prohibit expression of speech that disturbs Muslim sensibilities.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Friday condemned as “offensively anti-Islamic” a Dutch lawmaker’s film that accuses the Koran of inciting violence.

Ban acknowledged efforts by the government of the Netherlands to stop the broadcast of the film, which was launched by Islam critic Geert Wilders over the Internet, and appealed for calm to those “understandably offended by it.”

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

Interestingly enough, Wilders' film is not an incitement to violence -- but the words of those who have threatened violence as a response to this film (and to previous "offenses" such as the Muhammad cartoons or Benedict XVI's quoting of a Byzantine Emperor) do fall under that rubric. Where is Ban Ki-moon's condemnation of the actual threats of violence and the vitriol that accompanies it, rather than speech that the UN's own documents declares to be a human right.

Now we know why the 9/11 hijackers didn't target the UN Headquarters on 9/11 -- that organization is already in the pocket of al-Qaeda.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, D equals S, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Rant It Up, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 845 words, total size 7 kb.

CHAPTER 28
1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.
2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it.
3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.
4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.
5 But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.
6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.”
8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word.
9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him.
10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 1 kb.

But with one minor proviso.

They must embrace key tenets of Islam and reject key tenets of Christianity.

No churches should be permitted in Saudi Arabia, unless Pope Benedict XVI recognised the prophet Mohammed, according to a Middle East expert.

While Saudi mediators are working with the Vatican on negotiations to allow places of religious worship, some experts believe it will not occur without this recognition.

Anwar Ashiqi, president of the Saudi centre for Middle East strategic studies, endorsed this view in an interview on the site of Arab satellite TV network, al-Arabiya on Thursday.

"I haven taken part in several meetings related to Islamic-Christian dialogue and there have been negotiations on this issue," he said.

"It would be possible to launch official negotiations to construct a church in Saudi Arabia only after the Pope and all the Christian churches recognise the prophet Mohammed."

"If they don't recognise him as a prophet, how can we have a church in the Saudi kingdom?"

Ashiqi's comments came after a declaration launched by the papal nuncio of the Persian Gulf, the archbishop Mounged El-Hachem, at the opening of the first Catholic church in Qatar last week.

The prelate had announced the launch of "treaties to construct a church in Saudi Arabia where it is banned to practise whatever religion they want outside Islam".

El-Hachem estimated three to four million Christians in the Saudi kingdom who want to have a church.

Let's see -- accepting Muhammad as a prophet would also require rejecting the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Oh, and also his divinity. In other words, Christians can have churches in Saudi Arabia just as soon as they apostasize and become Muslims.

Of course, that would means that there would be no need for Christian churches in Saudi Arabia. But then again, that is the Muslim view of religious freedom -- if you aren't Muslim, you have none.

Isn't it a wonderful insult for the Saudis to throw at the Christian world in the midst of the holiest season of the Christian faith?

Posted by: Greg at 06:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

Were you there when they crucified my Lord?
Were you there when they crucified my Lord?
Oh! Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble.
Were you there when they crucified my Lord?

Were you there when they nailed Him to the tree?
Were you there when they nailed Him to the tree?
Oh! Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble.
Were you there when they nailed Him to the tree?

Were you there when they laid Him in the tomb?
Were you there when they laid Him in the tomb?
Oh! Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble.
Were you there when they laid Him in the tomb?

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

Another author has had to go into hiding in the face of death threats from the followers of the Religion of Peace.

BANGLADESHI writer Taslima Nasreen has left India after being hounded into hiding by death threats from Islamic extremists, her publisher and friends say.

"Taslima Nasreen flew out of New Delhi this afternoon to Europe for medical treatment,'' her publisher Sibani Mukherjee said.

She said Nasreen had asked her not to reveal the author's exact destination.

Close friends also told said she had left India, and some Indian television stations reported that Nasreen was headed for Canada.

Nasreen was forced to flee Bangladesh in 1994 after radical Muslims accused her of blasphemy over her novel Lajja (Shame') - which depicts the life of a Hindu family persecuted by Muslims in Bangladesh.

The 45-year-old gynaecologist-turned-author - whose predicament is similar to that of Indian-born British author Salman Rushdie - had been seeking permanent residence in India, where she moved after spending time in Europe and the United States.

But New Delhi had stalled the request, fearful of a backlash from the country's 140 million-plus Muslims, and has given the openly atheistic author only six-month visas.

Why the outrage over Nasreen's writings? is it because it depicts untruths about Islam? No -- it is because it depicts the truth about the status of religious minorities in Islamic societies. And an unflattering truth about Islam cannot be allowed to go unchallenged-- and those who speak such truths cannot be allowed to go unmurdered.

Personally, I would welcome Nasreen in this country -- not because I agree with her atheistic beliefs (non-beliefs?), but because I believe in her undeniable right to hold and express them freely. Indeed, there was a time that the "offenses" committed by Nasreen were considered to be human rights, and Western nations (even non-Western nations) sought to protect those who exercised those rights. Today, fear of Islamic terrorism leads many nations to back down or remain silent in the face of Islamic demands for the murder of those whose only crime is exercising their human rights.

But the threats of those who would kill Taslima Nasreen for the crime of speaking and writing freely once again leads to a choice between two strikingly sad realities -- either Islam is incompatible with human freedom, or it teaches that Muslims are not human beings.

Posted by: Greg at 08:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 409 words, total size 3 kb.

Now as I've said in the past, I have very little use for most of the high profile televangelists. I disagree with the theology put forth by most of them, which I believe borders on heretical. And yet I'm even more opposed by this effort by Senator Charles Grassley to dig around into the budgetary practices of their "ministries" in a public fashion -- and even more so by the threat to jail them if they do not cooperate with his kangaroo court.

"I've sent them some letters because I want some information. If they want to cooperate that's good, I expect they will. If they don't, they'll be the first people since a fellow named Abramoff, and he's in a jail cell."

So let's make this really clear -- Grassley is explicitly threatening to see ministers jailed for refusing to share the inner workings of their ministries with the US government. What's more, he is planning on holding hearings on their budgetary priorities, placing a US Senate committee in the position of passing judgment over whether or not their spending is in keeping with the beliefs and purposes of the ministry. That sounds pretty invasive of an area that is covered by the First Amendment to me.

Funny, isn't it, that the Left isn't at all interested in invoking the doctrine of the separation of church and state to condemn this witch hunt? And interesting, isn't it, that this liberal senator is only targeting ministries that are generally seen as conservative theologically and (because of that stance) politically?

I wonder -- when will Senator Grassley conduct the public investigation of the terrorist ties of Islamic non-profits, including mosques that preach extreme theology that is supportive of jihadi terror? Want to bet that the answer is NEVER -- because unlike the Christians he seeks to persecute now, Grassley knows that disgruntled Muslims may attempt to kill him.

This does, however, raise an interesting questions as to the constitutionality of requiring that churches and other religious groups apply to the government for tax-exempt status and the government's role in regulating them. There is a legitimate argument that religious groups, by their nature, should be exempt from taxes under the First Amendment. After all, as stated in the decision of the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, "the power to tax is the power to destroy." It is undeniable that the First Amendment implicitly denies the government the power to destroy a religious organization, just as it explicitly denies the government the power to establish one. Senator Grassley's statement serves as a pointed reminder of why the free exercise and establishment clauses exist.

Posted by: Greg at 12:26 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

I'll agree that it is important that anyone publicly endorsed as a saint by the Catholic Church ought to have a true reputation for holiness and that alleged miracles need to be thoroughly investigated -- but I've got concerns about this development.

The Vatican is making it tougher to become a saint.

New procedures were announced Monday calling for more "rigor" and "sobriety" by bishops when deciding to begin the process of beatification and in determining the required miracles.

Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, head of the Vatican's sainthood office, recently suggested that the Vatican was overwhelmed by causes following the pontificate of the late Pope John Paul II, who elevated more people to sainthood than all his predecessors combined.

Saraiva Martins said there are more than 2,200 beatification and sainthood causes pending.

The cardinal, speaking at a news conference Monday, stressed the need for a "true reputation for holiness" among candidates before a process begins.

He said "rigorous historical research is obviously intrinsic" to the investigation.

The troubling aspect of this case is that it almost seems to be a slap at Pope John Paul the Great, the predecessor of the current pontiff. He canonized and beatified more people than any prior pope -- partially out of a philosophy that the Church can and should recognize the sanctity of Christians in all parts of the world and all walks of life. I'm concerned that this change may challenge that view.

And I remain disturbed that the institutionalized process leaves out an older practice of the Church -- canonization via the acclamation of the people. Just as St. Thomas a Becket was recognized as a saint a mere three years after his martyrdom because the faithful of England had nearly universally proclaimed him as such, there needs to be a similar process today. Do the faithful (and the rest of humanity, for that matter) really need the curial bureaucracy to complete the paperwork to tell them what they already know in the cases of John Paul the Great and Mother Teresa?

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems like the government of Mahmoud the Mad is demanding censorship of anti-Islamic speech here in the West.

The Iranian government has called on the Dutch government to stop the screening of a film in the Netherlands blaspheming holy Quran.

The film, by the Dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders, is regarded by the Muslims as blasphemous.

The Iranian justice minister, Gholam Hussein Elham, wrote to his Dutch counterpart, Ernst Hirsch Ballin, calling for a ban.

Gholamhossein Elham said freedom of speech should not be used as a cover for attacking moral and religious values.

Well, then, Minister Gholam Hussein Elham, I can only presume that you will ban this film and punish those who made or funded it.

A new movie in Iran depicts the life of Jesus from an Islamic perspective. "The Messiah," which some consider as Iran's answer to Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ," won an award at Rome's Religion Today Film Festival, for generating interfaith dialogue. The movie will be adapted into a television series, shown on Iranian TV later this year.

Of course, the film itself is an act of blasphemy from the Christian perspective -- it denies Jesus was the Son of God, denies the Crucifixion, and denies the Resurrection, and relegates the Messiah to the mere status of "the last Jewish prophet" rather than rightly honoring him as the Savior of all humanity. And given that this satanic, blasphemous work was funded by the Iranian government and is to be shown on Iranian state television, I'd have to argue that what we have got here is a massive display of hypocritical chutzpah by the Iranians.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, , The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, A NEWT ONE-Special Thursday guest!, Stageleft, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 07:02 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 4 kb.

They have refused to kow-tow to those Muslims who demand that the most stringent interpretation of Islamic law regarding depictions of Muhammad be followed.

An article about the Prophet Muhammad in the English-language Wikipedia has become the subject of an online protest in the last few weeks because of its representations of Muhammad, taken from medieval manuscripts.
In addition to numerous e-mail messages sent to Wikipedia.org, an online petition cites a prohibition in Islam on images of people.

The petition has more than 80,000 “signatures,” though many who submitted them to ThePetitionSite.com, remained anonymous.

“We have been noticing a lot more similar sounding, similar looking e-mails beginning mid-January,” said Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco, which administers the various online encyclopedias in more than 250 languages.

A Frequently Asked Questions page explains the site’s polite but firm refusal to remove the images: “Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group.”

The notes left on the petition site come from all over the world. “It’s totally unacceptable to print the Prophet’s picture,” Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. “It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings and should be removed immediately.”

First let me offer a couple words back to Saadia Bukhari and other Muslims demanding that non-Muslims follow their rules -- لدغة لي.

Second, to I offer offer possible a compromise – instead of using a picture of a veiled Muhammad from a Muslim source, they should use an unveiled picture of Muhammad from other Islamic sources. But if that is unacceptable to those insisting upon dhimmitude by Wikipedia and the rest of us, II hereby grant permission for Wikipedia to freely make use of this picture I photoshopped last year.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Rosemary's Thoughts, A Newt One- Shared News!, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Adeline and Hazel, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 4 kb.

In the midst of an election campaign where the Mormon faith has been front and center on the political scene, that religion is likely to be brought to the forefront again in a different, sadder context. President Gordon B. Hinckley, the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has died at age 97.

Gordon B. Hinckley, 97, the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and an energetic grandson of pioneers who led his denomination during a period of great expansion in membership and facilities, died last night at his home in Salt Lake City, a church spokeswoman said.

In 1995, after many years in leadership posts in what is often called the Mormon church, Hinckley became president. He was the 15th person to hold that post.

The president of the church is held in special regard by the members, who see him as a prophet of God "in the same way they revered the prophets of scripture," according to material posted on the church's Web site.

Hinckley underwent cancer surgery in 2006, but church spokeswoman Kim Farah said last night that "the cause [of his death] was incident to his age."

Despite his age, Farah said, Hinckley had remained active and was coming in to the office as recently as last week.

The church said it did not expect a successor to be formally chosen until after Hinckley's funeral "within the next few days."

One need not be a Mormon to respect the work that this man did on behalf of his church. During his tenure the number of temples around the world more than doubled -- indeed, it is said that Hinckley personally dedicated some 95 of the church's 124 active temples during his lifetime (some prior to assuming the leadership of the LDS Church, due to the age and health of his predecessors).

And yet what I find interesting about this man is the great love for this man held by the young people of his church, a love that I am told was widely reciprocated. When I visited the home of some dear friends who recently married, my wife and I noted that they had a small picture of Hinckley on their wall, along with a large plaque that included a list of several traits for upright living. I didn't make a connection between the two until my wife asked about the latter, and our friend told us that the plaque was a list of traits that Hinckley had advised young people to cultivate in their lives. It was profound in its spiritual simplicity, rather in the spirit of St. Francis of Assisi.

1. Be grateful. Express appreciation to everyone who does us a favor or assists us in any way.

2. Be smart. The Lord wants us to train our minds and hands to become an influence for good.

3. Be clean. We live in a world filled with filth and sleaze. We cannot afford to let it touch us. We should not be disrespectful of the body which the Lord has given us.

4. Be true. Let us be loyal to the Church under all circumstances. The authorities of this Church will lead us in paths of happiness.

5. Be humble. The meek and the humble are those who are teachable.

6. Be prayerful. Look to the Lord for understanding and guidance, and walk according to His precepts and commandments.

As I've said in the past, I am not a Mormon and find myself in stark disagreement with much of its distinctive theology. But for all that, I am saddened by the passing of Gordon R. Hinckley, who by all accounts was a good and decent man, and I offer my condolences to his family and the members of the faith he led with great dignity and love.

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 649 words, total size 4 kb.

Perhaps it is a vain plea, that a thief would return items he has stolen. However, certain items have a value greater than money.

A car burglar made away with a Greek Orthodox bishop's religious items — including a jeweled crown of gold and silver.

Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver, bishop for the Northwest region of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, was dining with others at a restaurant in Arlington on Friday when the break-in occurred. He was visiting Dallas-Fort Worth area parishes.

The bishop, who ministers in many states, including Texas, said the car was parked in a brightly lit spot.

"We came out at 10 o'clock, and the window was smashed," the bishop said.

Someone took his symbolic crown from the back seat, along with his New Testament, veil and cell phone.

Isaiah, who served in the Marines, said a black fabric bag was also stolen. The bag has special meaning, having been given to him years earlier by the widow of another Marine.

He estimated that replacing the crown would cost between $6,000 and $10,000. The bishop offered a four-digit monetary reward if the crown is returned without damage.

"That was the first gift I received as a bishop 22 years ago," he said. "I feel lost without it."

At a vespers service on Saturday night, he was the only priest with no head covering.

"I just hope and pray that those who took it will have a change of heart," he said.

Whoever you are, you did not steal money. You stole something sacred, something loaded with memories for the owner and significance to his followers. Have the decency to return the stolen items to Metropolitan Isaiah. Take the reward if you must -- but the even better choice would be to accept the grace that comes of repentance.

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.

In the dispute between St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke and St. Louis University basketball coach Rick Majerus, is is clear that someone doesn't understand the First Amendment -- and that person is Majerus, not Burke.

After all, it is the place of a Catholic Archbishop to speak out forcefully and assert Church teachings when a prominent representative of a Catholic institution takes positions contrary to the teachings of the Church.

But Majerus doesn't get that point. Instead, he has said this.

"These beliefs are ingrained in me," Majerus told the paper. "And my First Amendment right to free speech supersedes anything that the archbishop would order me to do. My dad fought on Okinawa in World War II. My uncle died in World War II. I had classmates die in Vietnam. And it was to preserve our way of life, so people like me could have an opinion."

And Archbishop Burke has never argued that you don't have a legal right to your belief. He's never argued that you don't have a right to your opinion. But he does note, rightly, that you don't have a right to use your platform as a public face of a Catholic university to contradict Catholic teaching. You have a right to free speech -- but not to a be basketball coach at a Catholic institution.

After all, the Archbishop is the ultimate teaching and doctrinal authority for the Catholic Church in St. Louis. If you are going to publicly support abortion, expect to receive a technical foul -- and perhaps an ejection from the game -- as a result.

Posted by: Greg at 11:41 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Very interesting sites., vanessa hudgens sex tape, drl,

Posted by: vanessa hudgens sex tape for you at Wed Oct 7 14:08:30 2009 (vTkRL)

2 Only, Buy transparent bikini, =-OO, canadian national debt clock price, =), Cheap gas powered scooters, > , stop foreclosure for you, 1988, First student loan forgiveness, 8866,

Posted by: canadian national debt clock price at Wed Oct 14 06:23:18 2009 (4+hIe)

3 Real, swimming pool games, 14818, swimming pool fence discount, =), All about swimming pool kits, jwxgb, fiberglass swimming pool now, 7315, kids swimming pools information, %(,

Posted by: fiberglass swimming pool now at Fri Oct 30 18:17:12 2009 (51sWd)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I donÂ’t know enough about Dutch politician Geert WildersÂ’ politics to know if I would support his policies or not, but I have to agree with this assessment of Islam.

As Dutch police prepared for a weekend of riots and Mr Wilders was told by the authorities that he would have to leave country, he launched a new attack on "intolerant" Islam while announcing that his 10-minute film attacking the Muslim faith would be postponed for two weeks.

"If I had announced that I was going to make a film about the fascist character of the Bible would there have been a crisis meeting of Holland's security forces?" he wrote to the Volkskrant newspaper.

"Would I have received as many death threats as I have done since announcing I was making a film about the Koran? Of course not."

And yet this is the faith that is repeated referred to as a “religion of peace”. Do critics of Judaism have to go into hiding? Do governments attempt to silence such criticism and make concessions to Christian groups to stop expected violence when Christians are offended? Or course not – and because of the necessary differences between the responses of adherents of the two great Abrahamic faiths and the Mohammedan counterfeit we can ascertain that one fails to live up to the standard set by its alleged theological siblings.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Pet's Garden Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, A Newt One, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 4 kb.

Because Islam has appropriate the prophets of Christianity and Judaism as its own, sharia restrictions have been placed upon pictures of them by Malaysian authorities -- even in Christian materials intended for a Christian audience.

Malaysian authorities confiscated Christian children's books, claiming the illustrations of prophets such as Moses and Abraham violate Islamic Shariah law.

The independent news agency Malaysakini reported the Internal Security Ministry confiscated the literature from bookstores in two cities and one small town in mid-December.

The Malaysian Embassy declined to comment on the news service's Jan. 11 report.

The Rev. Hermen Shastri, general secretary of the Malaysian Council of Churches, confirmed the report and accused the government of persecuting Christians.

"The officials have offended the sensitivities of Christians because their publications and depictions of their Biblical personalities have now become targets of unscrupulous Muslim officials bent on curtailing religious freedom in the country," Mr. Shastri said.

"Immediate steps should be taken to amend administrative rules and regulations, especially in the Internal Security Ministry, that give a free hand to enforcement officials to act on their whim and fancies," he said.

Religious oppression of Christians and other religious minorities continues in Malaysia, and has been increasing in recent years. When will the world community get around to denouncing such violations of human rights by the Malaysian government? When will the rights of Christians receive even 10% of the concern that the rights of Muslims receive from international bodies?

Posted by: Greg at 12:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Oh, dear! Is Pope Benedict XVI angling for another fatwa?

POPE Benedict yesterday issued a strong call for religious freedom in Arab countries, saying everyone should have the right to practice their faith openly and to convert to other religions if they wanted.

The Pope, who was addressing Catholic bishops from Arab regions, also said he was concerned that parts of the Middle East risked becoming just "an archaeological site" if an exodus of Christians forced out by violence continued.

"I dearly hope that authentic religious freedom could become reality everywhere and that everyone's right to practice their religion freely, or to change it, should not be impeded," he told the bishops, speaking in French.

"This is a primordial right for every human being."

Indeed, he went even further.

"It is understandable that the circumstances sometimes push Christians to leave their country to find a more welcome land where they are allowed to live more freely," he said.

"But we must encourage and firmly support those who choose to remain faithful to their land, so that it does not become an archaeological site devoid of any church life," he continued.

And I agree with him that it is the duty of every Christian to support these oppressed brothers and sisters. But the problem is that there are too many Muslims, of the Islamist variety and others considered more mainstream, who want to guarantee that their lands are not even archaeological sites with a remnant of Christian history (or the history of other faiths) remaining. Consider the malignant work of the Taliban with the ancient stone Buddhas -- destroyed by repeated shelling with artillery pieces.

Religious freedom is a right with which we are endowed by our creator -- and one recognized under international law. When will the rights of Christians in the Muslim world be protected by the international community?

Posted by: Greg at 02:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, a Muslim film producer in a Muslim country has made a blasphemous movie that disrespects Jesus.

A director who shares the ideas of Iran's hardline president has produced what he says is the first film giving an Islamic view of Jesus Christ, in a bid to show the "common ground" between Muslims and Christians.

Nader Talebzadeh sees his movie, "Jesus, the Spirit of God," as an Islamic answer to Western productions like Mel Gibson's 2004 blockbuster "The Passion of the Christ," which he praised as admirable but quite simply "wrong".

"Gibson's film is a very good film. I mean that it is a well-crafted movie but the story is wrong -- it was not like that," he said, referring to two key differences: Islam sees Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God, and does not believe he was crucified

In light of the civilized, peaceful behavior of Muslims in recent years whenever their theological ox is gored, there appears to me to be an appropriate path for we Christians to follow. It seems to me that there needs to be a death sentence issued against Nader Talebzadeh for his insult to Jesus and to those of us who follow him. There need to be demands for an apology from the Iranian government. Mobs need to burn down Iranian diplomatic and cultural buildings around the world, as well as attack and destroy some mosques. Heck, maybe Christians also need to beat and kill a few random Muslims, perhaps by beheading, in order to express the level of offense given by this movie. After all, that is how the Muslim world handles perceived slights against Islam and its false prophet -- Muslims certainly won't object were Christians to respond in kind, would they?

Of course, such evil actions would go against all forms of civilized behavior, and betray Christianity's place as the true religion of peace. There would be universal outrage and condemnation if Christians acted like Muslims in this situation -- or any like it. And that outrage would be merited.

By the way, be sure to read the entire article and see just how much of a blasphemous insult to Christianity the religion of Islam really is. Then ask yourself -- how can Islam demand that Christians respect Muslim religious sensibilities when Islam itself is so offensive to the basic teachings of Christianity?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Mark My Words, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, DragonLady's World, Adam's Blog, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 4 kb.

Today, of course, is the day that most churches in the Christian tradition marked the Epiphany.

In honor of that, I'd like to offer a favorite of mine -- maybe a little less solemn that it is often presented, but something that reminds us of the joy of the revelation of God in the person of a child, the event that has been part and parcel of the season which now comes to a close.

Guide is to thy perfect light, Lord.

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

I wonder who that would be. Perhaps the same folks who have threatened to murder the artist whose works were pulled from an art exhibit in the Netherlands?

THE Dutch were debating the limits of freedom of expression last week after an artist who photographed gay men wearing masks of the prophet Muhammad was forced into hiding and her work removed from a museum exhibit.

Speaking on the telephone from an unspecified location in the Netherlands last week, the artist, an Iranian exile who goes by the pseudonym of Sooreh Hera, said she had been threatened with “execution”. She accused the director of the municipal museum in The Hague of cowardice for caving in to Muslim extremists.

Her story is a reminder of the tensions that have put the Netherlands and other European countries on the front line, sending dozens of people threatened by extremists into hiding since 2004, when a Dutch film-maker was murdered on the street and his collaborator driven into exile.

This leaves Hera, 34, in no doubt that she is in real danger. “They said to me, ‘We’re going to burn you naked or put a bullet in your mouth’,” she said, referring to menacing e-mails.

“They say, ‘Now you are locked in your home and you cannot go out any more’.”

She said that by photographing gay Iranian exiles in masks of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, and Ali, his son-in-law, she had wanted to expose a “hypocritical” attitude towards homosexuality in countries such as Iran, where men can be hanged for homosexual conduct.

“They condemn homosexuality but in countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia it is common for married men to maintain relations with other men,” said Hera. “Works of art can be provocative. It is not an artist’s job just to paint flowers. Art should shine a light on social issues.”

The photographs were part of an extensive collection of images by Hera of mostly Dutch gay men. Another part of her exhibit was a video featuring hard rock music and images of Iranian clerics interspersed with pictures of naked men.

Wim van Krimpen, director of the museum, initially praised Hera’s collection of photographs as “exceptional”. Last month, however, he announced that the masked men could not be included in the forthcoming exhibition because “certain people in our society might perceive it as offensive”.

Simple question -- Would this museum director have pulled an exhibit of Serrano's "Piss Christ" because “certain people in our society might perceive it as offensive”?

If not, why does he privilege Islam -- other than the fact that a subset of its followers is likely to engage in murderous violence?

And if such is the case, dare we tolerate Islam, granting it the same rights and privileges as other religions , in our societies and communities?

I know that is a painful, quite illiberal question to ask. But if Islam really is different, is it not essential to a free society that we treat it differently?

For that matter, the same question is quite important to ask of our Canadian neighbors as well. After all, the "human right" of certain groups not to be offended is rapidly displacing the internationally recognized human right to freedom of speech.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, , Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, third world county, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Global American Discourse, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Right Voices, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 621 words, total size 6 kb.

I guess not, given this ruling in Malaysia.

The Malaysian government has reiterated that non-Muslims cannot use the word "Allah," sparking concern Friday among Christians who use it to refer to God in their Malay-language Bible and other publications.

Abdullah Zin, the de facto minister for Islamic affairs, told reporters Thursday that the Cabinet is of the view that "Allah" refers to the Muslim God and can only be used by Muslims, who comprise about 60 percent of Malaysia's population.

"The use of the word 'Allah' by non-Muslims may arouse sensitivity and create confusion among Muslims in the country," Abdullah said.

Do you see that, folks? Allah refers ONLY to the Muslim God, not the God of the Christians and the Jews. That would mean that Muslims themselves are declaring that their Allah and our God are two different beings. And since this is coming not from a government generally seen as extreme, but is usually described as moderate and relatively secular, it cannot be argued that this is a voice of extremists who have hijacked the faith.

Of course, Malaysia has a history of allowing all sorts of atrocities to take place in the name of Islam.

More at Michelle Malkin

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, , Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Allie is Wired, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:38 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 4 kb.

Yeah, heaven forbid (oops -- is that too "fundamentalist" for these MPs?) that Catholic bishops insist that Catholic institutions operate in a Catholic manner.

Roman Catholic bishops are to appear in front of a powerful committee of MPs amid fears that they are pushing a fundamentalist brand of their religion in schools. Bishops have called on parents, teachers and priests to strengthen the role of religion in education. In one case the Bishop of Lancaster, Patrick O'Donoghue, instructed Catholic schools across much of north-west England to stop 'safe-sex' education and place crucifixes in all classrooms.

Crucifixes in the classrooms! Quick -- pass the smelling salts! And the teaching of traditional Catholic sexual morality -- the horror of it all!

Perhaps this comment from one of the MPs is the most telling.

'It seems to me that faith education works all right as long as people are not that serious about their faith.

Yes, we can't have folks who are serious about a religious faith teaching the doctrines of that faith and controlling that faith's institutions. That won't work at all. It might cause people to believe that religious faith -- or at least CHRISTIAN religious faith -- matters.

And yet, oddly enough, militant Islamist organizations are allowed to freely operate in the UK without much restriction at all. I guess that the reason is that the MPs know that neither the "doctrinaire" and "fundamentalist" bishops won't detonate themselves in the face of criticism.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | Comments (175) | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

There is simply no other way to define what they are asking for here.

Lawmakers from the Algerian Islamic political party of al-Nahda have asked the government to intervene to slow down "the activities of Christian missionaries in the country".

Algerian MP Muhammad Hudeibi was quoted as saying this in the local el-Khabar newspaper.

"We want the government to cut down this type of activity because the expansion of evangelisation in Algeria has become an important problem and is not marginal as some think it is," said Hudeibi.

For some years, the local media in Algeria have reported on the activities of a number of missionaries, particularly those from evangelical and Protestant churches, who have succeeded in converting entire Algerian families to Christianity, particularly those who come from the eastern area of Kabilia.

"We condemn the government's silence with regard to this phenomenon," said the Algerian MP.

"We are collecting the signatures of other lawmakers in order to begin a discussion in parliament on this problem," he said.

"All 11 parliamentarians of al-Nahda have been mobilised, but we are convinced that others will also help us."

The Islamic party also asked the Algerian ulema or Islamic scholars and imams to give their opinion on the issue of Christian evangelism.

Actually, the opinion of Muslim scholars or religious leaders on this matter should be irrelevant.

After all, the right to change one's religion is an internationally recognized human right, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As such, banning proselytism or conversion would fundamentally be a violation of the human rights of every individual living in or visiting Algeria. That such human rights violations are daily committed in other Muslim countries is irrelevant -- and if it is argued that Islam forbids such activities, then it must be conceded by those making such a claim that Islam itself is the enemy of human rights.

H/T Gates of Vienna

Posted by: Greg at 12:00 PM | Comments (72) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

Christmas is a time of hope, of expectation. We mark the birth of a child whose tragic fate we know, and yet we exult because of the glorious triumph that grows out of that seeming ignominious death and the possibility that opens for each of us.

And yet, some years it seems that there is much in this world to despair over.

And so I offer you one of my favorite Christmas songs, which reminds us that the victory has already been won for us by our Savior, Jesus Christ.

I Heard The Bells On Christmas Day

I heard the bells on Christmas day
Their old familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet the words repeat
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom
Had rolled along the unbroken song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

Till ringing, singing on its way
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime, a chant sublime
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And in despair I bowed my head
“There is no peace on earth,” I said,
“For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail
With peace on earth, good will to men.”

And in this day when the prophets of faithlessness seek to disparage and deny the truth of the Gospel, I repeat with Henry Wadsworth Longfellow the most stirring words of this composition -- God is not dead, nor doth He sleep!

May each of you find your hearts filled with joy this Christmas, and may you find your spirit renewed with the Easter Promise contained within the Christmas Miracle.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Is It Just Me?, The Midnight Sun, Rosemary's Thoughts, Stix Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Stageleft, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 6 kb.

Bravo to Dinesh D'Souza for making clear the absurdity of those who would expunge Christ from the public square and American culture.

But apply this logic to another holiday and its absurdity becomes manifest. Imagine if the ACLU filed lawsuits nationwide to remove all references to Martin Luther King on Martin Luther King day. The reason is that not everyone agrees that King's legacy was a positive one, and that the main beneficiaries of King's activism have been African Americans and other minorities. Southern segregationists, in particular, feel excluded from King's "beloved community." So in the name of diversity and tolerance all monuments and symbols and references to King should be erased. Instead Martin Luther King day becomes another "happy holiday."

This would be crazy. The answer to the ACLU would go something like this: "We are honoring King because we believe he has changed our civilization and our world vastly for the better. If you don't agree, by all means write a letter to the editor. But it is intolerance bordering on bigotry for institutions to get rid of all references to King simply because some people don't like him or feel excluded by his vision."

Like it or not, the Western Culture of which our nation is a part is in large part rooted in Christianity. Many of our cultural celebrations and practices are influenced by and connected to the Christian faith. Those who seek to wipe them out are not just attacking the faith of the overwhelming majority of Americans, but also the bedrock upon which our society rests.

Such individuals are welcome here. Our nation, our society, are built upon toleration of differing beliefs, even those which are so wrong-headed and intolerant as those of the Christ-erasers. But as in the hypothetical above, their sense of exclusion is not a legitimate basis for the suppression of the heart-felt beliefs of the majority.

Posted by: Greg at 02:03 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm a Christian.

I also believe, quite firmly, in evolution.

And I do not see a contradiction in the two.

Indeed, there are a pair of quotes in today's Michael Gerson column in the Washington Post that quite clearly reflect my point of view on the matter, each from author Leon Kass

The first notes that there is a rough parallel betwen evolutionary theory and the Genesis creation account.

Leon Kass, in his masterful work "The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis," observes, "The biblical account is perfectly compatible with the fact of a slowly evolving cosmos, with life arriving late, beginning in the sea and only later emerging on earth, progressively distinguished into a variety of separated kinds."

Indeed, if one does not read that account with a spirit of wooden literalism, that parallel is quite obvious. That would make the beginning of Genesis an allegory, rather than a history. And to those who object, may point out that if mere human beings are capable of using that literary technique, then so is an omniscient, omnipotent God.

But more important is the Kass quote that closes the column.

"Let us assume that creation is evolution," argues Leon Kass, "and proceeds solely by natural processes. What is responsible for this natural process? . . . Can a dumb process, ruled by strict necessity and chance mutation, having no rhyme or reason, ultimately answer sufficiently for life, for man, for the whole? . . . And when we finally allow ourselves to come face-to-face with the mystery that there is anything at all rather than nothing, can we evolutionists confidently reject the first claim of the Bible -- 'In [the] beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'?"

My argument is that no, that claim cannot be rejected. At the same time, God cannot be scientifically proven. There is no way to place God in a test tube or under a microscope slide, and there is no reagent that can test for his presence or absence. But as has often been pointed out, science and faith can be seen as -- and ought to be seen as -- complementary rather than contradictory. To place them at odds with one another is to present a false dichotomy, for coming to understand the divine miracle of creation AND evolution (which are, dare I say, one and the same) should not necessitate the the rejection of a Creator. Similarly, faith in a Creator God need not result in the rejection of the scientific laws and processes by which creation was carried out and which God gave us the intellect to understand. Indeed, both of those extreme positions fall well outside the boundaries of the Judeo-Christian faith tradition, and must be labeled heretical. Let them be anathema.

Posted by: Greg at 02:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

Like this is a surprise?

Pope Benedict XVI warned Sunday against seeking happiness in drugs or other "artificial paradises" and the self-centered quest for "pleasure at all costs."

Instead, the pope held up Mother Teresa — the Roman Catholic nun who devoted her life to serving the poor in India and elsewhere — as an example.

"Every day, she lived next to misery, human degradation and death," the pope told thousands of faithful gathered in St. Peter's Square. "Yet, she offered the smile of God to everybody."

The pope, speaking during the traditional Sunday noon Angelus prayer, said real happiness cannot be found in cultures "that put individual happiness in the place of God, a mentality that has its emblematic effect in the quest for pleasure at all costs, in the spread of the use of drugs as an escape, a shelter in artificial paradises, which turn out to be completely illusory."

Imagine that -- a Christian leader urging people to avoid self-destructive pleasure and to serve others. Suggesting that people look to the example of the greatest Christian religious figure or our lifetime, and, through her, to a model of Christian service. It isn't a new message -- it is one as old as the Christian faith itself.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.