Safer If They Called the AFA "Jihadis"

There's a rebuttal out there to the accusation of being paranoid, and that it is not paranoia if somebody's really out to get you.  Effective as a "Strike two!" call in a baseball game is the newest reveal that the US Army is naming the American Family Association a domestic hate group akin to the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church.  And to make sure Army personnel didn't misunderstand, the briefing at which this became an issue included a presentation slide putting Fred Phelps' photo (complete with him holding up a poster that says "No Special Law for F***") on a slide labeled American Family Association.  The rationale?  The AFA is strongly pro-traditional marriage and opposed to the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage.

Apparently, that position is all it takes to be labeled by the Army.

Ahem. When did the US Army get First Amendment rights?  I know for certain that individuals in the military have limited free speech rights on the condition of their service, so I would think that logically, our entire military has to curb its freedom to express an opinion that opposition to same-sex marriage is hate.  Speaking of free speech, it is an opinion that exceeds the purview of the military, because marriage is, as many conservative groups have argued, is just a social issue.  Hate is a social issue.  Violence and the threat to harm is not, and clearly the AFA is not an organization that engages or endorses any type of violence whatsoever.

This is a "Strike two!" occasion because, as Todd Starnes pointed out, this briefing by the Army is itself a dangerous hate move not unlike how the Family Research Council was also labeled by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a potential target for a truly hateful fascist to attack, which then happened.  In fact, Army officers have come to see themselves as idealogues and the mechanism of the Army as a force for activism.

One officer said the two Christian ministries did not “share our Army Values.”
“When we see behaviors that are inconsistent with Army Values – don’t just walk by – do the right thing and address the concern before it becomes a problem,” the officer wrote in an email to his subordinates.

The US Army has values?  And it is incumbent upon the American public to conform to those "Army Values?"  Call me hog-tied to the text (or paranoid!), but I'm certain that whatever Army Values exist are supposed to be reflective of the US Constitution which in no way acknowledges that one must campaign to "address concerns" of average American citizens that are "inconsistent with (so-called) Army Values."

So if the Army is going to fling open that door, then I'm not paranoid, and it's safe again to trod out Hitler references to things I find smack of fascism.  I ask that our government root out the Nazi dictator who compiled this briefing and jack him/her up for conspiracy to deprive the people of the AFA of their First Amendment rights and for putting them in potential physical harm.

Warning:  unlike baseball, there is no limit to the number of strikes anyone can make against Christian groups.

Back to the "Super" 70s with Kermit Gosnell

Pro-Life Fridays Radio Monologue - April 19, 2013
Part 2

Onto other news on life and death, Jill Stanek wrote a superb bit of history on the now infamous Kermit Gosnell earlier this week. If you haven't heard of Gosnell, I don't entirely blame you. It's not your fault if all you listen to is ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN. But, it is your fault if you don't listen to Pro-Life Fridays Radio, because we have been talking about the baby neck-snipping abortionist from Philedelphia since 2012. Well, little do people know that Kermit Gosnell has been killing babies and harming women for longer than the two decades that have been in focus of late. In 1972, before Roe v. Wade, Gosnell participated in a "study," along with a "doctor" by the name of Harvey Karman, sponsored by Planned Parenthood, in which Karman tried to teach a group of doctors in Bangladesh how to perform abortions. Later that year, Karman and Gosnell would work together again, this time inside Gosnell's abortion mill in Philedelphia. 15 young, minority women of limited financial means (poor, black women) were bussed from Chicago to Philly to undergo essentially the same experiment. What was it? Harvey Karman used these women to test his newfangled, wave-of-the-future, nearly hands-free abortion device he invented and cleverly named the "super coil." What's that, you ask? Former Gosnell employee Randy Hutchins testified for the Grand Jury Report on Gosnell, and the report says,


(I'll read the second paragraph before the first)

The problem was that they never tested it. They didn’t test it on any animals. They never did any – any – any other human trials. This was not something that was sanctioned by the FDA. This was just something that he decided – he and this guy decided they were going to use on these women."

(and now the first)

"[T]here was a device that he and a psychologist [Karman] were working on that was supposed to be plastic – basically plastic razors that were formed into a ball. All right. They were coated into a gel, so that they would remain closed. These would be inserted into the woman’s uterus. And after several hours of body temperature, it would then – the gel would melt and these 97 things would spring open, supposedly cutting up the fetus, and the fetus would be expelled.

I want everyone to just take a moment to think about what could possibly happen when 97 spring-loaded razor blades are introduced into a pregnant woman's uterus. I'm tempted to give you more than a moment, because apparently it didn't occur to Gosnell or Karman that anything, I dunno, BLOODY could happen, and since they're the doctors, they should know better, right?

Oh wait, did I mention that I put "doctor" in air quotes? I did. Dr. Karman did not have a medical license. In fact, he didn't even go to medical school. In fact in the 1950s, he was considered a convicted felon, having spent time in prison for killing a woman while giving her an abortion in a California hotel room using a nutcracker...until Gov. Jerry Brown pardoned dear Harvey. Harvey Karman simply attached the letters Ph.D to his name, somehow I assume associated with a diploma he obtained from a Swiss degree mill.

But back to our man Gosnell, who Karman enlisted to insert these brilliant super coils into. He was never charged with anything, even though nine of the 15 women suffered severe injuries, which included punctured uteruses, hemorrhages, infections, and retained fetal remains. Hm, who would have thought? If you'd like to know more about this experiment, and I hope we all do, Jill Stanek has provided us with search terms that could be useful, and those words are "Mother's Day Massacre, 1972." The media dubbed it that name, just so you know, not Jill and not us.

Gay Activists Try to Defend Cisco

Normally I wouldn’t comment on a situation like this, (because it is far too easy for someone to come along and accuse me of homophobia, even though I love all people, and there is nothing about gay people that scares me in the least), but because it involves someone I know personally, I’m going to make a point on behalf of a friend.  This post is my reaction and comments to the contents of Mike Adam's latest article in Townhall.com commenting on the Cisco firing of Frank Turek, titled "A Queer and Present Danger."  It is in particular to the argument made by gay supporters that Cisco made no unconstitutional moves against Turek that I respond.

I happen to agree that First Amendment rights exist to protect American citizens from unjust treatment by the goverment.  I also agree that a company has the prerogative to fire any employees or consultants for any reason, except for legal limitations.  Those limitations exist to protect employees from superflous and ujnust firings and include reasons such as race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and yes, viewpoint discrimination.  I agree that Cisco has the prerogative, but I do believe they flubbed it on the viewpoint discrimination. 

As far as Cisco is concerned, nothing Frank Turek ever said or did for which he was fired was ever a part of his dealings with the company. Anything the culpable manager found disagreeable was entirely within the realm of Turek’s private life. And what do we know about what people do in their private lives? That it is viewpoint discrimination if a company takes action for something that does not concern it. Cisco fired Turek for something he did in his private life.

So, gay supporters have been especially shrill as a result in trying to expand an acceptable limit to the First Amendment to justify Turek’s firing, saying that a private citizen is not constitutionally protected from the consequences of having a politically incorrect point of view to the point of forced unemployment. But let’s turn the tables and see if this argument works the other way: would it only be “consequences” if a gay rights activist were fired from his job because the manager didn’t like his views, views that never intersected with his job? The use of the word “consequences” is rather backhanded, as getting fired on account of viewpoint discrimination is no more a "consequence" than it was for blacks to get lynched as a “consequence” of the passage of the 13th Amendment. The manager who sought Turek’s firing did nothing out of said “consequence.” If not he, then Cisco, should have the balls to admit that this was an act of aggression on an indivdual’s private life, not a consequence of anything Turek said or did on behalf of the company.

While we’re talking about consequences, let’s imagine what the consequences of Turek’s experience can bring to Cisco. This would be a great capitalistic opportunity for a competing company to clarify that any similar brouhaha would be stridently avoided and actively woo Cisco’s current clients over to them. Cisco’s clients could also take the time to reevaluate if Cisco’s heavy-handed and unfair firing practices are something they want to associate with. And finally, Cisco managers can all be publicly branded as the invasive, intolerant bigots they have been so far. If Cisco thinks I am being unfair and wants to redeem itself even a little, then the execs can display some public some good faith in showing the offending manager the same courtesy that he showed to Frank.

Read the background story of Frank Turek's firing from Cisco in Mike Adam's articles for Townhall.com:
The Cisco Kid (a reprint of Turek's letter to Cisco's CEO concerning his firing)
Cisco Sinks to a Dishonorable New Low
Holier than Mao

You can also listen to Frank himself talk about his experience on a radio broadcast with Crane Durham:

Much Ado About Harold Camping Nothin'

With five days to go until Take Two of the Camping-senian apocalypse, I've clicked through a number of Harold Camping's YouTube videos logging his final radio shows.  Many of his adherents have sold all their possessions and eliminated their savings in preparation for the end of the world, which he predicts will happen on May 21.  These last days, his staff have been hyping up the advertisements for the end.  In today's video, his webmaster speaks with an air of expectation, like a husband who's pregnant wife is at the 'any day now' phase. 

Is May 21 going to be the end of the world?  Oh, it's entirely possible..............just like it's possible that any other random day could be the end of the world.  Other than the fact that Camping is just one end-times predictor just like all those who have gone before him (e.g. Joseph Smith Jr, the Jehovah's Witnesses), he's apparently marvelously captivating and believable. Otherwise, why would there be purportely so many families who have followed his directives to stop attending churches and crowd around the radio listening to him and him only?  Hmmmmmmm.

As I see it, Camping is really no different than any other self-glory-seeking man (and we all have a little of that in us anyway).  Perhaps the fact that he is now 90 years old and may actually see the Lord has prompted him to reclaim the fame that he had prior to his 1994 failed prediction of the end of the world.  I don't know.  What I do know is that the Bible specifically says that the exact day of the end is not known by anyone except God the Father alone.

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come." (Mark 13:32-33, NIV)

If you're like me and want to know the secret formula for predicting the end of the world, we can thank Camping for generously obliging us.  Here it is:   2 (5 x 10 x 17) = Judgment Day.  Ta da! 

On a more compassionate note, if you know any Camping followers who have seriously ditched all in life to wait by their radios, I beg of you to please be kind and put together care packages for them and deliver them on May 22.  Yeah, it's their fault they are deceived and unbiblical in their belief of Harold Camping, but this going to be a tragedy for many people.  Some of them may even try to take their own lives in the days and weeks to come.  I hope that conscientious believers everywhere would reach out and care for the children of Camping adherents and help these poor folks to get back on their feet.  They will need food, jobs, and homes again.  Most importantly, they will need you to be Jesus to them.

Man Pleads Guilty in Ohio Gunpoint Abortion Case

From AOL.com news:

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- An Ohio man has pleaded guilty to charges that he tried to force his pregnant girlfriend at gunpoint to get an abortion.

Dominic Holt-Reid entered his pleas in a Columbus courtroom Thursday to attempted murder, weapons and abduction charges.

He was charged under a 1996 fetal homicide law.

Police say Holt-Reid pulled a gun Oct. 6 on his girlfriend, Yolanda Burgess, who was three months pregnant, and forced her to drive to an abortion clinic.

Burgess did not go through with the procedure but slipped a note to a clinic employee, who called police.

I can't wait to hear Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW say that the worst wrong and most dangerous thing this man did was have a gun.  Legalized abortions with the kind of privacy demands that abortion supporters make end up tying them into ethical knots; the abortion clinic technically did not have to call the police or acknowledge the woman's note, and that is a problem.  How many other incidents of coerced abortions take place, shielded from the authorities because someone didn't use a gun to force a woman to the abortionist?  No one will ever know.

Dearborn Moves to California?

This video ignited a firestorm on my facebook. Take a look:


The complete story about this incident can be found here.

The controversy surrounds not with the behavior of law enforcement, which I think should be the focus this incident, but the behavior of the man reading the Bible. Much was said about how this man was an "obnoxious idiot," a "Bible-thumper," and a detriment to the Church. I really don't see that in the video, but let me grant it for the sake of the argument. Even if the man were to behave 100x's worse, would that justify an arrest? Even if he were Terry Jones can anyone justify an arrest--oh wait, that happened too!

As Lydia McGrew pointed out, this incident happened on public property on which no laws were broken. The video shows that the men were peaceful and stood at a distance away from others. Had this man been a Muslim, I think this point would have hit home, for political correctness would have seen to his protection, and no one would have dared lay a hand on him.

As believers, we should be just as compassionate for these brothers in Christ as we would have for the nonbelieving public. To reserve from them that which we would give to others is duplicitous. The man has been called an "obnoxious idiot," but not one said that the security guard or the patrolman were "obnoxious idiots," even though they were. I cannot in good conscience shame fellow Christians in public for what they were trying to do and for which they were unjustly arrested. I have even had one individual tell me that the man got what he deserved even though the patrolman was wrong--hello, contradiction? The three fellow believers in the video have been unjustly treated; I don't know why as a matter of principle we don't defend their legal rights first instead of savaging someone's character. We don't do this to nonbelievers, but we find it somehow acceptable to eat our own.

Having said that, I can now address the separate issue of the wisdom of standing at a DMV and reading aloud from the Bible to people who clearly don't appreciate the effort. First of all, that's weird. Out of context and out of place, it is a gratuitous intrusion on the sensibilities of the general public, especially to read Bible passages without an explanation of the reader's intentions. Christians and non-Christians alike readily attribute a negative character to anyone who would do so, as shown by the comments on my facebook thread.

Second, this type of "cold" preaching is, as people have accused, detrimental to the mission of the Church. By creating a situation in which the people associate the Gospel with weird, intrusive, and annoying Christians, one may taint the impression of the Gospel itself. This, of course, is not how real missionaries operate. In a strikingly similar case, believers who traveled to Dearborn, MI were unjustly arrested for trying to preach the Gospel to Muslims. But in that case, the Christians had a context, a clear limited scope, and brought people willingly into a dialogue about Jesus Christ.

I think we all agree that maybe these men should have behaved more wisely leading up to being falsely arrested, but if we justify the arrest in any way, shape, or form over and against the Constitution, we have all taken a step toward losing our own First Amendment rights. Hey, it's your freedom (and mine).  It takes surprisingly few cases to set off unconstitutional limitations if they aren't constantly being defended.

Denied Valedictorian Receives Her Honor, 75 Years Late

For totally inarticulate-able reasons, this story just struck me right there.  A long overdue rectification of an injustice toward a more-than-deserving individual just has the right ring of sorrow and satisfaction.  Please watch:

The story reports that “it’s believed that school leaders did not want two black valedictorians so close together.”  Fanetta’s Gordon’s sister claims that the principal of the school especially did not want two black students from the same family to graduate with valedictorian honors.   As a result, the principal ordered the music teacher to lower one of Fanetta’s grades in the class. 

Most of us would quickly judge this a case of discrimination and robbery, and I believe that it was.  But I believe it was more sinister than even that.  You see, the principal denied Fanetta not what she was entitled to as a human being (because not all human beings are valedictorians).  Far worse, he denied a title and an honor that Fanetta earned and deserved.  The principal took something away from Fanetta that she had already possessed by ordering the music teacher to change her grade.  The way I understand it, the principal did not simply discriminate, he made her the victim of affirmative action to a position that traditionally has a quota of one.  So instead of one black young woman who earned her way to the top, a most likely white student received the valedictorian honors that he or she did not deserve just because of race. 

I hope that those who support affirmative action in the contemporary debate realize that affirmative action almost always victimizes someone.  Some colleges have quotas; almost all colleges have limits on the number of acceptances per school year based on race and ethnicity, which means someone will inevitably be rejected for belonging to the wrong race.  Employers cannot legally discriminate in hiring, yet they must fill out surveys on the racial makeup of their employees (by percentages!) that can be used to accuse them of doing the very thing they try to avoid, usually at the bark of some malcontent civil rights attorney.  In affirmative action, the dividing line between acceptance and hiring vs. rejection is race-based.  As a society, we should know that what is used to allow one race to gain a certain benefit almost always means that another race must face an undeserved loss, just as Fanetta Gordon did so long ago.  Certain races have always been favored over others for whatever reasons in any civilization.  As much as I’d like to change it and would encourage change on this, I have to admit that this is the way of the world.

It is thankfully not the way of the Kingdom of Christ, however. Galatians 3:27-29 says, “for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Every believer is a favored person under the merits of Jesus Christ. We are all spiritual paupers who have been given lavish suites in the mansion of Christ. How then can we deny another something that he/she deserves in this world? It is with the understanding that each human being is unworthy of God’s favor, yet we have it through Jesus, that we can act with justice toward each other.

I am so glad Fanetta Gordon finally received her honor, albeit a sorrowful 75 years denied. Kudos to the school for doing the right thing after all these years.

British Muslim convert preaches against the very government that props him up

A former BBC security guard, now unemployed, converted to Islam and currently campaigns for a Sharia takeover of Britain, all the while living rent-free and collecting £1,256 per month in state welfare benefits.  Check it--that's over $2,048 USD. 

In the article, Mr. Dart/Salahuddin actually complains about his silver spoon living conditions in what are considered upscale flats:  "'It's quite luxurious compared with other ones, but you're crammed in like sardines and I can hear my neighbour coming and going. I don't enjoy living among non-Muslims,' he told the Sun. 'Under Islam things would be much better. You could have a detached bungalow for each wife, maybe four bungalows if you had four wives. I have to live here - and it's very hard to have four wives.'"

Wow, Mr. Dart wants to live the Islama-vida with four wives and separate bungalows, eh?   My, but he's such an elegible out-of-work welfare junkie and so dedicated to spending his days biting the hand that feeds him (someone tell me if he's good husband-material by Islamic standards, please).  According to the article, "he regularly takes to the streets of Whitechapel, East London, where he now lives, to conjure support for the fight to create a global Islamic state."  There's a word for this type of sponging--parasitism.

Well!  A la Charlie Sheen:  WINNING!

(HT: Answering Muslims)

Chris Matthews' 'Don't Know Much About History' Blunder on Hardball

I found this yesterday on Huffpo.  Though suffering through a cold usually makes one numb to what else goes on in the world, I had to gasp at this interview they pulled off of Chris Matthews' Hardball earlier this week:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Wow, talk about biting it on national television with a shameful showing of the utter lack of knowledge on the US Constitution and American history. On Tuesday, leftist lackey Chris Matthews went on a jaundiced tirade against Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's speech for the Iowans for Tax Relief. Specifically, he derided Rep. Bachmann's citation of John Quincy Adams as one of this country's forebearers who worked tirelessly for abolition.

Actually, let me change that. Chris Matthews doesn't have a "lack" of knowledge about the US Constitution and the history of abolition; he has a lack of accurate knowledge about the US Constitution and the history of abolition. He has drunk the liberal historical revisionism that many high school teachers and college professors now pour down the throats of our impressionable students who haven't understood history as it was between the Constitutional Congress and the Civil War. Let's let the circumstances back then speak for themselves.

- John Quincy Adams: according to biographies of Adams' life, he repeatedly attempted to introduce bills by abolitionist groups into Congress calling for the abolition of slavery. Such was the opposition to his ongoing attempts, Southern Democrats passed a number of gag rules in order to prevent Adams from introducing any more abolitionist bills.

"Throughout he was conspicuous as an opponent of the extension of slavery, though he was never technically an abolitionist, and in particular he was the champion in the House of Representatives of the right of petition at a time when, through the influence of the Southern members, this right was, in practice, denied by that body. His prolonged fight for the repeal of the so-called "Gag Laws" is one of the most dramatic contests in the history of the U.S. Congress. The agitation for the abolition of slavery, which really began in earnest with the establishment of the Liberator by William Lloyd Garrison in 1831, soon led to the sending of innumerable petitions to congress for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, over which the Federal government had jurisdiction, and for other action by congress with respect to that institution. These petitions were generally sent to Adams for presentation. They aroused the anger of the pro-slavery members of congress, who, in 1836, brought about the passage of the first "Gag Rule", the Pinckney Resolution, presented by Henry L. Pinckney, of South Carolina. It provided that all petitions relating to slavery should be laid on the table without being referred to committee or printed; and, in substance, this resolution was re-adopted at the beginning of each of the immediately succeeding sessions of congress, the Patton Resolution being adopted in 1837, the Atherton Resolution, or "Atherton Gag", in 1838, and the Twenty-first Rule in 1840 and subsequently until repealed. Adams contended that these "Gag Rules" were a direct violation of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and refused to be silenced on the question, fighting for repeal with indomitable courage, in spite of the bitter denunciation of his opponents. Each year the number of anti-slavery petitions received and presented by him increased; perhaps the climax was in 1837, when Adams presented a petition from twenty-two slaves, and, when threatened by his opponents with censure, defended himself with remarkable keenness and ability. At each session, also, the majority against him decreased until in 1844 his motion to repeal the Twenty-first Rule was carried by a vote of 108 to 80 and his battle was won." (Source: NDDB biographies, http://www.nndb.com/people/370/000026292/)

Incidentally (or not incidentally, if you believe in Divine Providence as I do), in the last year of Adams' life, he mentored a young Congressman to work toward abolition. This Congressman later went on to become the 16th President of the United States. Oh, what was his name? Abraham Lincoln. (Watch this history video about John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhtkAO9PUE8)



- the Three-Fifths Clause in the US Constitution: historical revisionism has erased the word "compromise" from the Three-Fifths Compromise as written in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3. Why? Because the word "compromise" could cause people to ask questions over what the compromise was about. In the runup to this clause in the Constitution, slave-holding states wanted their slaves to be included in the state population to give them more seats in Congress and votes in the electoral college. Morally, this was outrageous, for using slaves to increase your representation in Congress was insult beyond subjugation, not to mention an unfair advantage in congressional representation against Northern states. Abolitionists moved to oppose such accounting, wanting slaves not to be included at all. In a compromise, Congress adopted the Three-Fifths rule to appease the Democrats yet limit their power.

From Gary Wills, "Negro President”: Jefferson and the Slave Power, cited on Wikipedia: The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio" had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.

Chris Matthews clearly needs to go back to school and read some real American history and apologize to Rep. Bachmann for inflicting his ignorance on her and the American public. Maybe then, he won't be as big of a "balloon head" who suffers from so much hoof-in-mouth disease on national television.

Why Nidal Malik Hasan Did Not Murder Anyone

I originally intended to publish a post on the Ft. Hood massacre soon after the news broke about the attack by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. In the inital days following, the news media strained to find a possible motive for Hasan's actions. Was he a flaming jihadi or a garden variety crazyman? Now, since the events took place months ago, I've had plenty of time to mull the situation over and grant possibilities and motivations subliminally suggested by the media. I also enlisted the help of a fellow Christian apologist and expert on Islam, David Wood from Answering Muslims, to help me make sense of Hasan's motivations. Questions in bold are followed by his answers in italics. To be fair to the media, I have also included representative media answers in response to Mr. Wood's statements. Thus, this blog entry has both sweet and sour sides to it. I'll let the reader decide which is which.

1. It seems like the American media doesn’t know what to make of this man Hasan except to attribute his actions to a psychosis or a mental breakdown. How legitimate is this treatment of him?

Hasan did exactly what Islam commands him to do, which is why it's absurd to attribute his actions to a mental defect. If Hasan had started running down the highway in a pink dress, barking like a dog and shooting people with paint-ball pellets, we might reasonably question his sanity. But when he proclaims his jihadist views over a period of years, consults Muslim scholars about waging Jihad, purchases weapons, and carries out a brutal attack against carefully selected targets, psychological problems simply aren't the explanation. Islam is the explanation.

Phptht. No, Hasan had to be mentally disturbed. After all, he was about to be shipped to Iraq to fight George Bush’s War. Who wouldn’t go insane? You shouldn’t bring Hasan’s cultural upbringing into this. As an enlightened and tolerant society, we should realize that none of this is really his fault, and he can’t help it if he’s Muslim. I mean, Islam is a religion of peace, right? Right?

2. What are the laws in the Qu’ran prohibiting murder or the killing of innocent people? Tell me about what they mean.

Concerning the murder of innocents, Muslims may appeal to Qur'an 17:33, which says, "And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided." Here a Muslim may rightly claim that the Qur'an condemns the killing of innocents.

The problem is that the Islamic definition of "innocent" is radically different from that of practically everyone else on the planet. According to Islam, non-Muslims aren't innocent. Pagans aren't innocent. Christians and Jews aren't innocent. Consider, for instance, what Qur'an 9:30 says about Jews and Christians: "And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Christians and Jews are therefore guilty of the worst sin imaginable (associating partners with Allah). It isn't surprising that 9:29 commands Muslims to fight us.

Hence, while it is correct to say that Islam forbids the killing of innocents, we must keep in mind the fact that, according to Islam, the only innocent people are good Muslims.

This has to be an obvious twisting of the Qu’ran. I mean, what about The Crusades?

3. According to this understanding of the Qu’ran, why are American soldiers legitimate targets of killing?

The Qur'an specifically says that the penalty for "making mischief" in Muslim lands or fighting against the Muslim community is death. Qur'an 5:33 reads: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement."

The American soldiers targeted by Hasan were about to be deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, to make what Hasan would regard as "mischief in the land." These soldiers were therefore legitimate targets according to Islam.

Well, I have a Muslim neighbor, and that’s not what he believes. And he says he’s very devout. His kids and mine play soccer together.

4. What is the war/jihad that Hasan chose to fight in and what the imam he consulted with endorsed?

According to Hasan, the United States is at war with Islam (due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). Thus, any Muslim is justified in waging Jihad against America.

That’s sooo ridiculous. As stated before, Islam is a peaceful religion. The U.S. is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq because George W-stands-for-Warmonger Bush was a warring warmonger. You can’t base what one crazy man says as representative of the whole religion. I’m sure there’s no justification whatsoever in what he believes. He’s crazy, you know.

5. If Hasan’s acts took place in, say, Saudi Arabia, would he be treated as a murderer as he is here in the US?

In the eyes of Muslims who understand Muhammad's teachings, Hasan isn't a murderer at all. He killed enemy combatants, and therefore should be considered a war hero.

Haw-haw. Hasan is a US citizen, and he has Miranda rights and should be tried fairly in federal court. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty!

6. What could be his defense for his actions? Could he argue that he did not really murder anyone at all, since none of the victims were Muslim?

Murder, by definition, is an unjust killing. In Islam, it's lawful to kill enemy combatants. It's also lawful to kill people who are aiding enemy combatants. It's even lawful to kill civilians as collateral damage when targeting enemy combatants. Everyone killed by Hasan fits into these categories, so there was nothing unjust about his killing spree (according to Islam).

See, this shows that Islam is very tolerant and peaceful.

7. The American society seems to be just one of the things disdained by many militant Muslims about the US. Are the features (positive or negative) of American society fundamentally incompatible with Islam or Sharia? Are Islam and Sharia the same?

Islam is the religion, while Sharia is the legal system put in place when the religion becomes dominant in an area. Thus, while there are many Muslims in America, there isn't much Sharia. Sharia is completely incompatible with American society. Freedom of religion is severely limited under Sharia. Freedom of speech is severely limited. The penalties for various offenses in Islam would qualify as "cruel and unusual" in America. Since America is pluralistic, Islam can exist in America. But Islam is monolithic; therefore, America cannot exist under Islamic rule.

America has separation of church and state, therefore, I cannot conceive of any American Muslims who would tolerate Sharia. Only the radical Muslims, whom I refuse to acknowledge exist, would want to impose Sharia. Even if they did exist (which they do not), I’m satisfied with characterizing them as terribly misunderstood and also confident that they will eventually become as relativistic about their beliefs as I believe they should be.

8. Is Sharia the goal of Islam? I mean, there are plenty of Muslims who do not want to live under Sharia. However, does faithfulness to Islam compel them to accept it as the right way of life?

If someone believes that Islam is true, they should believe that Sharia is the greatest system of law (since it's the system that's been commanded by Allah). It is therefore quite strange for a Muslim not to desire Sharia law. Muslims who do not desire Sharia have either been thoroughly Westernized, or they don't know enough about their religion to know that they're supposed to seek the establishment of Sharia.

Well, if you’re going to get all confusing like that, then there is no longer any reason to rebut you.

9. Are Americans naïve to this aspect of Islam? Are Westernized Muslims likewise naïve?

Since Americans are raised to believe that a particular religion shouldn't be forced on people, many Americans just can't grasp the fact that Islam is completely different in this respect. Americans tend to think that all religions support basic rights, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, etc. Indeed, when the facts about Islam are pointed out to people, many become upset because they assume that those presenting the facts must be misrepresenting Islam. After all, no religion could possibly teach that unbelievers should be fought simply for being unbelievers!

Similarly, many Muslims in America have been raised with Western values, and they believe in Western values. But since they don't know much about Islam, they are convinced that Islam teaches the same thing (when it doesn't).

This is the problem with religion in the first place. Adherents turn perfectly benign beliefs in the brotherhood of man (and woman) and the parenthood of God(ess) into a contest of exclusivity! If religious people would just become as enlightened as we reporters, journalists, and news anchors, then everyone would understand how objectively correct we are in pointing out the relativism of all moral and religious beliefs! Let us all put down the dogma, already! Get it? Put down the dog-ma?

10. There are efforts from people like Irshad Manji to reform Islam into a less oppressive religion. Is this even possible?

People are free to reinterpret Islam, and this is what many are already doing here in the West. The problem is that wherever Islam spreads, there will always be a minority of Muslims who take the Qur'an and Hadith seriously. So no matter how much Irshad Manji waters down the religion of Muhammad, Muslims will continue to oppress unbelievers.

When women and minorities are abused in Islamic countries and bring that abuse to the West, I tolerate it as a mark of their culture that I can’t bring myself to critique in public, even if I wanted to. I’ve abdicated my ability to criticize Islam out of loyalty to moral and religious relativism and political correctness. Christianity—now that’s another matter altogether…

Personal reflection:
An army base with unsuspecting and men and women, most of them unarmed. Motive: kill the enemy. Triggerman: one Soldier of Allah. Result: 13 dead.

However the media (and the military) chose at one point to characterize what happened, I can’t ignore the clear, linear progression of logic that led Hasan to attack the personnel at Ft. Hood. For a Muslim dedicated to the supremacy of Allah by following Qu’ran to the letter, mass murder became more necessary than any gentle proselytizing. Maj. Nidal Hasan was an officer in our military, yet he was of another military, that of Islam. In short, he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, following the path of what he believed a good Soldier of Allah was supposed to do.

Oh yes, let’s go there. Though 13 people died, assuming none were Muslim, according to the laws within Islam, Hasan did not commit murder at all. The dead were only Jews, Christians, and infidels worthy to be swept up in body bags as the consequence of victory in jihad. In Islam, there is no murder of non-Muslims, just death. This is the first tragedy of Ft. Hood.

The second tragedy is this: it took months for the Army to finally spit out the word “terrorist” in the same sentence as Hasan’s name. And the mainstream media? I’m still waiting. And in the pit of my stomach, I suspect I will be waiting forever. Journalists are doing the equivalent of sticking one’s head in the sand to hide from the obvious. Hasan’s beliefs are Islamic…and protected in the shadow of welfare in a beautiful, magical, multicultural world. Therefore, saying anything negative about the origin of his violence (ahem, Islam) is strictly prohibited in the uber-PC culture of the mainstream media. Political correctness forces us to ignore where Hasan got his jihadist mindset (um, the Qu’ran and the Hadith?)

So it seems that some want to imply that Hasan could have been a radical, violent, religious nutcase that had just as much chance of shooting up an army base as a Christian as he did as a Muslim. Fine. If that were the case, I have complete confidence that the media will call him for what he is: a murderer.

But if political correctness in the media can’t call something for what it is, like murder, terrorism, and jihad, then we might as well blame political correctness for murdering 13 people. If that is the case, then political correctness needs to be murdered in order for people to live.

????

Found this on HillBuzz.com:

Is that...Karl Marx in the apple?

Note: we have it on the word of HillBuzz, who picked up this photo early when it first came out last week, that the photo is the original cover of Newsweek and has NOT been Photoshopped.

It's not "rape" unless you say it twice in a row.

The obvious denial of the circumstances by outspoken celebrities in support of movie director Roman Polanski cannot be starker than Whoopi Goldberg’s televised “rape-rape” statement on The View a few weeks back. Apparently, many Hollywood celebs say that the judicial system should overlook his physical, emotional, and psychological assault on a little girl (a crime) just because he happened to successfully run away from his trial sentencing (another crime) for 30 years.

But what can anyone say in defense of the obviously indefensible? Redefine harm? Make lame excuses? Indeed, like marrying a rich ailing widow for her fortune, there is no cliché that gets more repeat performances than the classic movie star wave-off after being caught in sexual immorality.

Just in case anyone is wondering, "pleading guilty to having sex with a minor" equals statutory rape EQUALS rape-rape-rape-rape.

Think government-controlled health care is here to help you?

Think again.

Most critics of private health insurance (especially the President) have tried to make the case that government-controlled health insurance will avoid the drawbacks of denied and/or limited coverage, exemptions, and well, corporate greed. But will it? Reality says no.

Just take a look at this video of the chairman of the Oregon health plan as he explains why the state-run "public option" can deny life-saving medication to cancer patients yet approve the cost of receiving doctor-assisted suicide.


Credit YouTube user AlreadyKnownAsX2

His answer to the question "is it cheaper?" to pay for ($$$) end-of-life care rather than pay for ($$$) cancer treatment is astounding. He ultimately affirms that the issue is about ($$$) money while denying that it is about money. Ohhhh. Heads up, people, the bottom line is still the bottom line whether it be public or private insurance no matter what the motivation.

If it be not corporate greed, it will be some other rationalization. Brilliant.

(Many thanks to Frank Beckwith at WWWTW for the heads up on this one.)

ADDENDUM 9/2/2009:
When private health insurances deny a patient some medical procedure, it's called corporate greed. When govt health insurance (socialized medicine) does it, it's called "saving money." At the end of the day, if you're that patient, do you care WHY you're being denied or BY WHOM? Tell your politicians not to implement the 'public option' that screws the public's options.

Where There Is No Tolerance

Reported on FoxNews.com: Christian Man Raped, Murdered for Not Converting To Islam, Family Says.

Comments forthcoming.

No, Really, I'm Not an Object...

even though I'm selling myself like a fresh slice at the corner deli.

A few weeks ago, I listened to a radio interview of the now famous Natalie Dylan. I hadn't heard of this young woman's story until then, but what I heard has caused scenes of Army of Darkness flash through my mind since. My latest Google search for Natalie (thankfully not her real name), who's gotten bids on her virginity of up to 3.7 million nasty little dollars, didn't yield any new developments, but really, I'm okay with not knowing anymore details right now.

I found the striking statements Natalie made in defense of her actions incredulous. When asked why putting her virginity up for auction did not objectify her in her mind, she compartmentalized the issue, giving allowance for objectification only in the context of selling her virginity--she fully wants to be treated as a person otherwise. If the issue were eating habits, I'd find this funny. Instead, here is a woman who first is pathetically naive and second has the same good sense as a piece of meat carpet.

So, Miss Dylan wants people to treat her like an object in a context that suits her and then treat her as a person in another context when that suits her. Hm. It's unfortunate that she said that she intends the money to pay for graduate school, because admissions administrators probably won't like Miss Dylan to treat them with such disrespect. Future employers of businesses that don't deal in the buying and selling of the human body probably won't like being treated with such disrespect. And any good guy out there worth marrying will definitely dislike being treated with such disrespect. One does not and cannot control another in this way, beginning with the situation at hand. If Miss Dylan thinks that money will be enough to control the 'winner' of her auction and everyone in the world that comes after him, I sincerely fear for her in the most anxious way.

The reality of the matter is that one can never divorce personhood from the body. Why not? Because if we could, rape victims--hey, any victim of violence--could never seek legal reparations against their perpetrators. Any defense attorney would argue that victims weren't persons at the time of the crime. This side of death, there is no such thing as a personless body, at least if you're not a fetus and especially if you are a woman. We can thank the U.S. Supreme Court and Planned Parenthood for nailing that one down.

Way to go, Miss Dylan. Your brilliant rationalizations have pushed womanhood backwards. In a breath, you have turned females into objects...again.

(Why the Army of Darkness imagery? "Gimme some sugar, baby...")

A Hitler By Any Other Name Would Smell Just as Sweet?

It was just a matter of time before America's PC chicken would come home home to roost. A Pennsylvania couple made headlines when a local grocery store refused to decorate their son's birthday cake with his name on it. The boy's name? Adolf Hitler Campbell.

Okay, so one might wonder why these parents would name their child after the leader of the infamous Third Reich. In their own defense, they claim that "Adolf Hitler" is just another German name plucked from their German heritage. Pretty innocent? Uh-huh. What about one of the other kids, the one they gave the middle name "Aryan Nation?"

Legally, parents can curse their children with objectionable names if they want (within limits, of course), but then to try act all casual and innocent about it for the newspaper is just disingenuous (I prefer to think of it as blatant SOB-havior).

But all right, back to the chicken - Are these people white supremacists? In my view, there's not much reason to name their offspring after Nazis unless they were. White supremacists are a hated minority here in the U.S. I would find it downright humorous and poetic should a case like the Campbells become a legal matter of discrimination that the ACLU would come to their defense. What a hoot!

(I know that the ACLU have defended white supremacists in various legal matters, but what would it look like on CNN?)

The Journey in the NY Times

Read it here: "Taking Their Faith, but not their Politics, to the People" from the New York Times, published June 1, 2008.

Oh, ANYTIME that an article about The Journey's many interests in social issues and the Bible gets written in a major U.S. paper that begins with how Southern Baptists shun alcohol is a convulsing good time. What are we at, about a half-dozen of these now?

To be sure, I'm not complaining about the thin gild of approval that seems to coat the news coverage of my church. The last thing I want is to read how much people should despise us for talking about stuff. But what I observe more than anything in these articles is that they aren't really about us, The Journey. Rather, they are about how the older evangelical churches (namely Southern Baptist ones) are seemingly losing their way in culture and influence and how churches like The Journey are leading the way to pounding the nails into their proverbial coffins. Nice.

Only it's not like that. While journalists like to overly portray differences as ideological, the core disagreements concern methodology and a level of charity for opposing views that older evangelicals are unaccustomed to showing. I admit I'm generalizing a bit. Neela Banerjee, the journalist for the New York Times piece, thankfully did not impress this point of view as much as others like Tim Townsend (of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch) have in the past. Still, as benign as it is, by nature it is impossible for these news articles to be anything else but divisive when the reporter also searches out opinions of The Journey's more severe critics, like Roger Moran. Moran's negative commments about The Journey's Theology at the Bottleworks discussions should be understood in a very specific context and not taken to indicate that churches cannot associate. Indeed, Moran's views represent a small, albeit vocal, minority among more traditional churches. In general, The Journey has experienced little, if any, conflict with fellow Christian churches across several denominations, including Southern Baptist.

This particular article ends with a quote from yours truly, so I feel I must comment. It says,

Letitia Wong, 32, who said she favored a fence along the Mexican border to keep out illegal immigrants, added: “As much as our faith informs our political views, we aren’t united in one way of thinking. What unites us at the Journey is the power of Jesus Christ.”

I don't remember saying specifically anything about a border fence, other than when asked how many people present thought it was too easy to enter the US, I raised my hand. And, if you think my quote sounds a little weird, so do I. In its proper context, I meant to convey that The Journey's primary emphasis is on faith in Christ and not on political stances. We have thoughtful liberals and thoughtful conservatives in church who derive their political leanings from their interpretation of how the Bible's precepts apply to public policy, and I think that's fair enough. We can disagree all day long about who and what to vote for, but at the end of the day, it is important that we recognize that we are Christian siblings who share the love of Christ. And in that context, politics takes a back seat.

My hubby says I'm famous now. I don't really know--perhaps infamous might be more accurate. That suits me just fine. If you're curious about the lead photo, yep, that's me waaaaay in the back shoving a forkful of monster nachos in my face. Can't see me? Good.

In addition, I offer a few corrections to the article, for the sake of accuracy.

- The Journey is affiliated with the St. Louis Metro Baptist Association (which is a tier down from the Missouri Baptist Convention, which is itself a tier down from the Southern Baptist Convention), but it is a far cry from being a Baptist church. The church actually came about through the efforts of Jesus!--er, Darrin Patrick, through the Acts 29 Network.

- A 2,000 member megachurch? Shucks, not yet anyway. Service attendance over five services may reach 2,000, but actual membership is somewhere between 500 and 800.

- The Theology at the Bottleworks discussions don't regularly center on President Bush and the war in Iraq. In fact, we haven't approached that topic in over three years.

---

What others are saying:

Darrin Patrick at The Journey's website
Denny Burk
Revolution in Jesusland
Tom Durso at 501(c) Files
Stephen Murray
Guy Williams
Avery at AveryFineLine
Jonathan Merritt
Tim McNabb

The Times article was even reproduced internationally on a website called Vox Vocis in a language I can't even identify (the article remains in English).

What's love got to do with it?

A friend of mine spent five years with a woman who married him only for US citizenship. I know a number of couples whose marriages were arranged, including my own in-laws. I know that hundreds of marriages each year take place between two people who don't even know each other in mail-order bride setups. In none of these situations where a marriage license must be obtained does a judge or a court clerk ever ask how each party feels toward the other. Why not? Because, it is not up to civil authorities to determine if there is an emotional basis for marriage. In other words, as far as the government is concerned, what's love got to do with it?

Apparently, it's the only thing that matters if you're gay and want to marry your partner in California. The CA Supreme Court put same-sex marriage on the fast track to statewide implementation this week by overturning a ban on such marriages. Chief Justice Ron George explained the majority opinion by saying, "our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person..." yada yada (emphasis mine). Oh, so now the state is supposed to have an interest in how loving two people are toward each other as the basis for marriage?

Anyone should see how poor Justice George's rationale is. First, the law has never cared about the emotional state of people getting married, because second, it can't. The law has no ability to grant a position of marriage based on emotional relationship, because "loving" is not a quantitative characteristic. All the law can establish with any certainty is species, gender, and age, all of which must be legal in order for a valid marriage. Last, the length of the committment to marriage is of no consequence (and just as unquantifiable), as divorce is as common as tatoos in Seattle. So Justice George's appeal to gay couples having the capacity for "long-term committed relationship[s]" makes about as much sense as...as...well, it doesn't make any sense.

Now I'd like to march right into the courthouse where I got my marriage license and demand to know why my feelings about my fiancee were never confirmed for the state. That's the government--failing the people once again.

Can't make this stuff up

Headline I found on FoxNews.com:

"DEVIL-WORSHIPPING RAPIST ATTACKS FIANCEE DURING PRISON LEAVE"

How many ways can you go wrong in one sentence?

Think, St. Louis Metrovoice

The February 2008 issue of the St. Louis Metrovoice features articles written by Michael Spielman, taken from Abort73.com. All articles are superb arguments for the pro-life case, thoughtfully and winsomely written and articulated. One of them in particular, titled "The Cost of Life", is particularly noteworthy, for Spielman prefaces his main argument with a lengthy reference to the movie Schindler's List. Great movie. Great article. But...

Tsk tsk, Metrovoice. Don't you know that Schindler's List is rated R?