Tuesday, February 28, 2006
He said it would result in the avoidance of 100 to 145 cancers a year among the nearly 67,000 workers that currently are exposed to airborne levels of hexavalent chromium of more than 5 micrograms. About 88 percent of the workers are in workplaces where airborne levels already meet or exceed the new standard."
So if I've done the math correctly, it will cost about $2M per year ... per person for each of the 145 people that will be saved as a result of this new standard. Surely there's nothing wrong with spending 2 million a year to keep someone alive who will, one day, die anyway (Michael Sciavo might disagree). What baffles me is that we could use economics as a reason to kill an unborn human. Regardless of the child's environmental advantage or misfortune, he/she can never pay enough in taxes to justify 2million a year in expenditure on his/her behalf. But neither can anyone else.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Again, I wonder which is worse.
If I had a say in the matter, all US ports would be run by US companies. But then, I'd also have it that all video equipment in the US was made by US companies. After all, we invented all the technology and it's a multi billion doallr industry from which we could certainly benefit. We simply lacked the perseverence to bring our own technologies successfully to market. US investors are an impatient lot for sure. Give us immediate results or give it to someone else. We have become a society driven by immediate results in all that we do; from relationships to technology to human life and lifestyle. If it doesn't bring us what we want when we want it, then let's be done with it.
At the urgings of the enormously profitable baby killing industry, a handful of men, dressed in black robes, deeming themselves worthy, believing that they were in the embrace of all wisdom, determined that they could see in the US Constitution the right for a parent to have their chidren killed for profit if it was determined that those children were too inconvenient, either to the parents or to society. These same men in black proved true the adage that, when you go out looking for one thing, it is only one thing that you will find. Since they didn't go out looking for the truth, they didn't find it. Since they did go out looking for a way to enrich those of us that are already here by killing those who would one day replace us, they miraculously found hidden, obscured, cryptically entwined within the bold words of the Constitution which declare our God given Freedom and Justice, the wonderfully generous gift from God to kill our children for the good of ourselves, our bank accounts and our personal freedom to choose. Our personal freedom to choose to kill children. Hitler's personal freedom to kill children. Sadaam's personal freedom to choose to kill children. Where's the difference between them? Longitude and latitude is about the only difference that can be seen by anyone whose gone out to seek the truth and not simply to "seek only one thing and therefore find only one thing".
So I wonder, which is the real threat to America: Our fear of Arabs running the day-to-day operations of some ports or the day-to-day extermination of Americans for profit, within our own borders, with an efficiency that would make any Nazi jealous. Coupling a lack of contraint on the increase in population of illegal immigrants to an unfettered self-extermination of Americans, it's easy to imagine the terrorist's dreams come true in just a short while: Americans eliminated from the earth. And to their added joy, by our own hands. And we're worried about a few ports. Imagine that.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
"We all feel sympathetic for someone who is losing a home," he says. "But we also have to consider the faces of people of all income levels who benefit from the job creation these projects bring." Can you just picture the faces of the greedy suns of beaches on the golf course laughing it up about how they grabbed yet another prime bit a of real estate for a song. Yes, it's clear that Mr. Borut has been about as secure in his home and its investment value as Justice Souter, the two faced hypocrite, who has yet to accept the offer from a California developer to buy his home from under him so that he can pay more taxes on the land than Judge Souter ever will. Can't bring myself to call him "Justice Souter"... the man just doesn't seem to have a grasp on the concept... of justice, that is.
Mr. Borut's sympathetic feelings take second place to his understanding of the need for greed, even if he calls it "prosperity". That just looks like a lot of wasted sympathy to me. I'm sure any common thief thinks himself quite prosperous too. Especially after reliveing the likes of Borut or Souter of their private property, all in the interest of what they view as the betterment of mankind.
USA Today: Eminent domain
Saturday, February 18, 2006
LAGOS, Nigeria (CNN) -- Sixteen people were killed and 11 churches were burned Saturday in Nigeria as part of the continuing violence over cartoons of Islam's Prophet Mohammed.
Can there be any question at all that Islam has anything at all to do with peace?
CNN.com - 16 die in cartoon protests in Nigeria - Feb 18, 2006
From the news:
"Those faster-moving glaciers now dump in a year twice as much ice into the Atlantic as they did in 1996, researchers said Thursday. The resulting icebergs, along with increased melting of Greenland's ice sheet, could account for nearly 17 percent of the estimated one-tenth of an inch annual rise in global sea levels, or twice what was previously believed,..."
Friday, February 17, 2006
'If you're a news magazine and you want to tell your readers about the story, you've got to show the cartoons,' Levant says bluntly. 'So we did what I think every journalist should do.'
But every journalist did not publish the cartoons -- and Levant has a word for them. 'I don't think we did anything abnormal. I think the abnormal acts were by other editors, publishers, and producers across North America who decided to self-censor,' he offers. 'They're the ones with the explaining to do.'
Meanwhile, the Canadian journalist says he is not concerned about the threats from an Islamic organization to seek 'hate crime' charges against his publication.
'The first instinct of Muslims -- instead of debating or rebutting or writing a letter to the editor ... is to call the cops, to go to the police, to go to the courts as if they're still back in Saudi Arabia where the Quran is the law, where the country is under Sharia law,' he says. Levant believes that is the wrong approach in a free society -- and Muslim immigrants, he says, must understand that Canada is not Saudi Arabia.
'That's what's frustrating to me,' he says. '[T]hese newcomers to Canada, who happen to be Muslim ... are not adopting our Western traditions of free speech and respect for non-Muslims.'
And his stance, he claims, has nothing to do with any ill will toward Muslims in general. 'I don't mind if a Muslim practices his own faith,' he shares. 'But I'm not Muslim, and I don't want to be subordinated to it. So when a Muslim organization demands I not publish these cartoons and goes to the cops to enforce that, that's wrong -- and he's got to understand that."
Thursday, February 16, 2006
"Princeton University geology Professor Kenneth Deffeyes has been studying world petroleum production data and has come to the conclusion that the world hit peak oil last December 16, 2005. If he is correct, total world oil production will never surpass what was produced last December. From the article: 'Compared to 2004, world oil production was up 0.8 percent in 2005, nowhere near enough to compensate for a demand rise of roughly 3 percent. The high prices did not bring much additional oil out of the ground. Most oil-producing countries are in decline."
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hamas win prompts US aid cut vote
FOXNews.com - Business News - Mazda Plans Dual-Fuel Car in Japan:
Mazda Plans Dual-Fuel Car in Japan
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
TOKYO — Japan's Mazda Motor Corp. said on Wednesday it will begin leasing a dual-fuel car that can run on both hydrogen and gasoline in the auto industry's latest effort to reduce oil consumption in vehicles.
Most major auto makers are developing zero-emission hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars as a potential alternative to today's conventional gasoline and diesel engine cars but believe they are decades away from mass production due to high development costs and lack of infrastructure.
Mazda said the RX-8 Hydrogen RE, based on its popular RX-8 sports car, gets around these problems by running on gasoline in the absence of a hydrogen fuelling station, and using existing engine parts and production facilities to lower costs.
The car is powered by Mazda's iconic rotary engine and can switch between hydrogen and gasoline fuel with the flick of a switch. It can cruise for a maximum 62 miles on hydrogen and 549 km (341 miles) on gasoline, it said.
Fuel cell cars, meanwhile, use hydrogen to first generate electricity through a fuel cell stack for power, and require an electric motor.
A rotary engine is suitable for hydrogen fuel because the separate chambers for fuel intake, combustion and exhaust significantly reduce the danger of the fuel's backfiring compared with a conventional recipro engine.
Mazda, the world's only maker of rotary engines, said it would lease the model to Japanese oil refiner Idemitsu Kosan Co. and gas trading company Iwatani International Corp. starting in March for 420,000 yen ($3,577) a month.
It plans to lease another eight to public and private-sector customers by the end of this year.
Japan has 13 state-owned hydrogen fueling stations, while energy-related companies such as Idemitsu and Iwatani also own their own fueling
A Danish-born columnist and European affairs expert says the people of Denmark have really been shaken by the Islamic outrage surrounding the recent newspaper publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad.
But since the explosion of outrage over the cartoons throughout the Islamic world, the Heritage Foundation official says the controversy has rippled through her native country and Denmark's populace has definitely felt it.
The foreign policy expert [Helle Dale, Director of Foreign Policy and Defense Studies at the Heritage Foundation] believes many Danes are reacting to the way this incident has affected the nation's image in the international community. "Denmark is a country that is generally well regarded in most of the world," she says. "It has a very generous foreign aid program and has worked in the Middle East among Palestinians, for instance, for many years."
The Islamic community's response to the cartoon controversy "really shook people up a great deal," Dale contends. Many Danish citizens are stunned that the publication of these caricatures of Muhammad have "caused such massive offense, which I think is way out of proportion to what actually happened," she says.
Associated Press reported this week that there appears to be a backlash in Denmark to the Muslim violence associated with the cartoons. A new poll, says the report, shows Denmark's populist anti-immigration party is gaining support. The party's leader has called a group of Danish Islamic leaders "the enemy within," accusing them of inciting outrage in Muslim countries by spreading anti-Danish propaganda.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
First Coast News - U.S. and World News - Protesters Rampage in 2 Pakistani Cities: "Protesters Rampage in 2 Pakistani Cities
By ASIF SHAHZAD
Associated Press Writer
Pakistani students run away from teargas fired by police to disperse the crowd who gathered to protest against the publication of cartoons depicting Islamic prophet Muhammad, Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 in Islamabad,Pakistan. (AP Photo/Anjum Naveed)
LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) -- Thousands of protesters rampaged through two cities Tuesday, storming into a diplomatic district and torching Western businesses and a provincial assembly in Pakistan's worst violence against the Prophet Muhammad drawings, officials said. At least two people were killed and 11 injured.
Security forces fired into the air as they struggled to contain the unrest in the eastern city of Lahore, where protesters burned down four buildings housing a hotel, two banks, a KFC restaurant and the office of a Norwegian cell phone company, Telenor.
U.S. and British embassy staffers were confined to their compounds until police dispersed the protesters, some of whom chanted, 'Death to America!'
Monday, February 13, 2006
[Note from TIMe: as tiring as it is to focus so much on the bad behavior inherent in Islam, until we all see it for what it really is, there cannot be too much focus. ]
Comparing Islamic Fascists to Christian Conservatives
By Rev. Mark H. CreechFebruary 13, 2006
(AgapePress) - It has become a world crisis. Cartoons printed by a Danish newspaper depict the Prophet Muhammad in a way that Muslims say is blasphemous. In retaliation, Muslims are violently protesting by burning flags, attacking embassies in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. Riots have broken out in Beirut, Indonesia, the Palestinian territory, and Afghanistan. Muslim clerics continue to stir the flames of Islamic indignation, calling upon Muhammad's followers to enforce respect for the prophet's name with their own blood. People are being seriously injured and killed.
The media has often compared Christian conservatives in America to violent Islamic radicals. Bob Norman in the New Times Broward-Palm Beach once wrote: "The underbelly of the Christian right is as scary as anything that ever dwelled in a Tora Bora cave." Robyn E. Blumner in the St. Petersburg Times, once compared conservative Christians with the Taliban saying: "The religious right has spent more than 20 years chipping away at the wall of separation between church and state, trying in Taliban-like ways to inject religion into public schools and the operations of government."
Drew Pierce with E-volve Now has argued: "I agree with Bill Clinton when he said, 'Our number-one threat abroad is fundamentalism, absolutism. Terror is their tactic, but it is their ideas, their hatred, their absolute certainty that they are so right that they can kill people who disagree with them -- that is our enemy.' ...How true. This is not rocket science. But what about this same terrorism, fundamentalism, and absolutist mentality as a threat from within here at home? I suggest that the threat from within created by a stampede of millions of fundamentalist Christians is far more dangerous than a handful of terrorists." Even former President Jimmy Carter has alluded to comparisons between fundamentalist Christians and Islamic fundamentalism in his latest book, Our Endangered Values.
Such comparisons are common today by those on the left, but nothing less than asinine -- and recent events on the world stage prove it.
In 2001, The Brooklyn Museum featured Yo Mama's Last Supper, a color photograph by Renee Cox, which depicted 12 black men and a nude woman at Christ's Last Supper. Cox posed as the woman, who was supposed to represent Jesus Christ. Yet there were no riots by offended Bible-believing Christians -- no burning of the Brooklyn Museum with fire bombs. There were lawful protests, but people weren't being killed -- no placards saying "Butcher those who insult Christ," or "Behead those who blaspheme the Savior."
Piss Christ, by American photographer Andres Serrano, has been around since 1987. It's a close-up photograph of a crucifix submerged in the artist's urine. It's been the subject of much controversy. Christian people have deplored its support by the National Endowment for the Arts. But there have never been any riots by fundamentalist Christians over the matter.
What about when New York Performance Works, a downtown New York theatre that staged 12 performances of Tis a Pity She's a Whore, which portrayed the Virgin Mary as a prostitute? The play was advertised with postcards containing an illustration of the Holy Mother with the Immaculate Heart and the inscription "Tis a Pity She's a Whore," written across her. Did conservative Catholics violently storm the theatres? Were Catholic Priests whipping up a frenzy of hatred and violence against the play's performers and sponsorships? They were rightly incensed, but expressions of opposition were non-violent.
Planned Parenthood has been promoting "Choice on Earth" Christmas cards for four years. The cards, whose inscription is a play on words taken from the Gospel of Luke 2:13,14, have degraded the Christmas message of God's sending a redeemer for man's sin to an argument for the murder of millions of innocent pre-born children. Have pro-life Christians essentially called for a jihad -- a literal holy war on Planned Parenthood? No, they have used their lawful rights to try and stop the violence perpetrated and celebrated by such organizations -- they have not incited violence on them or anyone else.
Countless are the depictions of Jesus in the movies and on television that are incredibly offensive to conservative Evangelicals. From Martin Scorsese's film, The Last Temptation of Christ, where Jesus explains that he makes crosses for the Romans so his fellow Jews will be crucified and God will hate him; to NBC's failed TV drama, The Book of Daniel, where the Lord was essentially portrayed as a powerless wise-cracker. Yet no conservative Christian organization, group of churches, or Christian activists have led their faithful to attack movie studios or destroy the broadcasting towers of NBC affiliates! No producers of such programming have been killed or beaten.
In fact, what we are witnessing at this hour is a clear presentation of the vast differences between Christianity and true Islam. Granted, there have been exceptions to the case, where some misguided individual or group that, in the name of Christ, performed some atrocity on those who disagreed with them. But such is an exception to the rule at best and never in line with the commands of Christ.
Nevertheless, Muslims around the world are now obeying Muhammad through violence.
Randall Terry, president of the Society for Truth and Justice, has spent considerable time studying Islam, beginning with his Arabic studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and in doing research in Islamic primary sources for a lengthy project comparing Christ and Mohammed,. Terry notes: "If we are going to understand the Islamic mind, we must study the life of Muhammad. 'What would Muhammad do?' needs to be the grid through which we view Islamic culture, law, and acts of terrorism .... Muslims who attack or threaten death to those who mock Muhammad are following in the footsteps of Muhammad himself." Terry goes on to point out that Muhammad ordered the assassination or execution of individuals who satirized him, and this is the basis for why its a criminal offense in Islamic law to belittle the prophet.
One of the controversial cartoons of the prophet shows Muhammad with a lit bomb in is turban. In an insightful editorial, Culture Clash Over Cartoons, columnists Monte Kuligowski muses: "I wonder what the Christian equivalent (cartoon) would look like. In the present case, a cartoonist apparently believed that because Muhammad was a man of war, Islam has evolved (or always has been terroristic) into its present state of suicidal/homicidal terrorism. With Christianity, Jesus walked the earth healing the sick and feeding the hungry. What might a cartoonist place in Christ's turban? Maybe a hospital or a loaf of bread?"
Indeed, as J. Grant Swank, Jr., argues in his recent piece, Cartoon Protests: Messenger = Message, it is the sword that rules in Islam. "In Christianity," he says, "there is the cross not the sword. The cross is where the sinless sacrifice, Jesus, offered Himself to satisfy the justice of eternity. All repentant souls may find forgiveness through that sacrifice. Their eternity is forever bliss and holiness in heaven. In the meantime, Jesus calls His own to live the Good Samaritan example -- love your neighbor as yourself. Muhammad calls his own to slaughter: 'Fighting is prescribed for you ... it is good for you. Koran 2:216.' Slowly the free countries are coming to realize this horror."
Let's hope and pray that they do realize it. Moreover, let's hope some in the American media will realize it, too, and stop erroneously comparing conservative Christians to Islamic fascists. To do so is like comparing Billy Graham and Mother Teresa to Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein! All the James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy and Don Wildmon types in America would never be lowered to the reprehensible moral equivalent of the reaction we see by Muslims around the globe to a bunch of cartoons.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Mankind makes many mistakes, within the realm of nature, through which he damages himself. That homosexuality is so deeply invested in the human psyche does not make it more valid, it just makes it more damaging.
As a creator, God made mankind for a purpose. Otherwise, obviously, man would then be rendered purposeless and subsequently, God would be flawed, his creation would be an accident and He therefore would no longer be God. In this sense, the clarion call of the atheist would, in fact be true: man made god to serve his own purpose as a crutch and as an excuse for all that he, man, cannot understand.
On the other hand, if God is God and His creations are the product of a will of divine love that produces only goodness, then we look to the design to gain a better understanding of the designer. We do this regularly in our daily lives. We gather in galleries and museums, studying the painting and sculptures of artists trying all the while to glean the message of the work while simultaneously gaining an understanding of the artist. Or we will look at a character as portrayed in a movie and develop an understanding and sometimes affection for the artist that presented his or her work for our benefit. In the simplest of applications, we look at a smiling face and discover the heart of the being behind it.
So it is with this understanding that we can look at the function of our daily lives and behaviors and discover that our wills either do or do not align with the will of the Creator as expressed through the work of His hands in His creations. If it is the will of Divine Love that mankind is intended to continue, then we look to the design of the species and see that it functions with opposite sexes combining chromosomes to perpetuate the species ad infinitum. And because the function of this design reflects continuation and we believe that continuation is good because the work, humanity, is good, then we must conclude that the design is good and the work is the creation which springs from the goodness of God’s love.
On the other hand, if we contend that homosexuality is equally as good or, as the homosexual community phrases it, simply an alternate lifestyle (while implying that it is as valid as heterosexuality), then we must question whether the goodness, validity or viability of a thing is connected in any way to the outcome of its behavior and application. If a behavior results, ultimately in the termination of a species through its inability to replicate, then the only way this could be a good thing is if the species were a bad thing and required termination. Self-terminating cockroaches are a good idea, at least from the domesticated human’s perspective. The blue jays of the world may differ on that point. Self-terminating human beings are not a good idea, if logic prevails. Either the being is flawed or the behavior is wanting, but it can’t be both, that a being and his behavior (lifestyle) are valid while one eradicates the other. If there were any merit in the Darwinian Theory, it would be that the species that perpetuates self-validates. The behavior that obliviates, eliminates. That is to say, if a behavior such as homosexuality, which by definition of its actions fails to propagate the species by virtue of the inability of the lifestyle to regenerate (albeit the unwillingness to do so), then the principles of survival predict its demise. That which self-destructs or self-eliminates by functional design is not of God, as self-destructive propensities declare a flaw in the design and therefore it cannot be good; hence, it cannot be of God. Of course, we can't preclude contamination of what was a originally a good design. An inherent understanding of this point raises the question of timing: when does sexual deliniation and proclivity first establish itself. To ask the question would imply that there is an expected answer and therefore the notion of a flaw is not at all an alien injection into the discussion.
Let me be clear. I am not in any way condemning homosexual people. What I am saying is that the behavior is illogical in its conclusions and therefore inherently unnatural, if for no other reason than, by virtue of its outcome. The rock guitarist who, after expressing his innermost self to the world, destroys the instrument by which he was able to express himself, smashing it violently against the floor, best portrays the logic of homosexuality. An attitude of “All for me now”, without any consideration to the future is socially and morally invalid. Rock performers, as all artists, may smash what they create. Likewise, if we as individual humans were each fully autonomous in that we created ourselves as well as the environment in which we lived, then such a position might be accepted, assuming we didn't demand that others in society tolerate our beavior and the resultant problems . But rather, when we are dependent on others (God and our parents) in that we even exist as well as for our sustenance (God and society), and can only shape our environment, then we must look at healthy continuity with a more selfless eye, if we are truly interested in justice and goodness (even if oblivious to divine will), but not just self indulgence.
We must all understand that we are flawed in one way or another and that, as Christians, it is the pursuit of divine perfection that we all should seek. Christians are commanded to do so by Jesus Himself. Being flawed makes us human; seeking to correct our flaws through salvation makes us Christian. It is therefore difficult for me to accept the notion that a bishop or clergy such as Gene Robertson is serving God, the Divine Creator (whose designs are perfect, even if damaged by humans and their application), when he proposes that the practice of homosexuality is concurrent with God’s plan… concurrent with Divine Will. In that it is self-serving and not God-serving makes it against God’s will. It should also make it against the will of any cleric in that his calling is to serve God, not himself. To be out of step with God’s will, knowingly, is the very definition of sin. Therefore, it is in a lifestyle of sinfulness that Mr. Robertson purports to lead God’s people and it is in Wisdom and Justice, both gifts from the Holy Spirit, that the people object. Not everyone has wisdom and not everyone loves justice. With all due respect and no pun intended, you can tell a tree by its fruit. You can tell God’s people by how fervently they seek Him and seek to do His will. Fortunately, we have Divine Word in scripture to direct and support our beliefs. There is nothing in scripture to direct or support homosexuality. There is, however, much to condemn it.
I do believe, however, that we cannot and should not condemn or judge Mr. Robertson and others within the church community sharing similar ideas. Rather I think we must all pray for him as we do for all humanity in its struggle to find God amidst our own self-determined will to destroy the work of the Divine Artist, perhaps because it’s the only way we’ve discovered to discover Him. I want to believe that Gene Robertson means well. I want to believe that he is not evil but misguided. I know that he is wrong thinking and that his conclusions mock God and God’s people. I pray that the evil that besets some within each of the many fragments of the church that Jesus gave us is recognized for what it is and is lovingly dispelled in the name of the Lord.
Something Rotten in Denmark?
Crisis Sparked by Cartoons Has Many Layers COPENHAGEN, Denmark, FEB. 11, 2006 (Zenit.org).- That a global crisis could be sparked by the publication of a few cartoons seems to vindicated the old adage of the pen being mightier than the sword. The events have also demonstrated that freedom has its limits, particularly when the deeply held religious beliefs of others are involved. The Danish daily Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons last September, after asking artists to depict Islam's prophet. The newspaper's aim was to challenge what it perceived was self-censorship among artists dealing with Islamic issues. A Norwegian newspaper reprinted the images in January. Then, after demonstrations protesting the cartoons started to gather force, a number of European newspapers reprinted the cartoons, in what they considered to be a defense of freedom of expression. With a few exceptions, media in Anglo-Saxon countries have refrained from publishing the cartoons. The events have provoked a lively debate in the press. A Feb. 3 editorial in the London-based Times noted that the paper refrained from reprinting the images. It would have been a needlessly gratuitous insult to do so, months after their original publication, the editorial said. It did add, however, that the protests by Muslims "would carry more weight if pictures that crudely insult Jews and Christians were not found regularly in the Middle East." By contrast, another British newspaper, the Telegraph, in an editorial the same day defended "the right to offend," even as it opted not to publish the cartoons. The Guardian newspaper said that the right of free speech is an important principle, but added: "There are limits and boundaries -- of taste, law, convention, principle or judgment." The editorial noted, for example, that British newspapers regularly publish stories about child pornography, but so far none have reproduced examples of it. The German newsweekly Die Zeit did republish one of the caricatures. "It was the right thing to do," argued the magazine's Washington bureau chief, Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff. He wrote a column in Tuesday's edition of the Washington Post. Kleine-Brockhoff explained that Die Zeit would not have printed the cartoons if they had been originally offered to the magazine. Freedom of the press is accompanied by a responsibility not to inflame opinion, he stated. Yet, "the criteria change when material that is seen as offensive becomes newsworthy." Moreover, he affirmed: "To publish does not mean to endorse." Kleine-Brockhoff noted that the Mideast governments now protesting the issue are also responsible for oppressing their own religious minorities. Should we counsel "tolerance toward intolerance?" he asked. Satire's limits A former prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for Eastern Churches, in an interview published Feb. 3, said that targets for satire should be carefully chosen. Cardinal Achille Silvestrini told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that satire has its limits. While it may be permissible to poke fun at a priest, or Islamic customs, he said, it is another matter to attack God, the Koran or Allah. Freedom of expression, therefore, must be accompanied by respect, argued the cardinal. And, he added, Western culture needs to limit its affirmation of liberty as an absolute value. The theme of limits to liberty was also dealt with by one of Rome's auxiliary bishops, Rino Fisichella, in an interview with the newspaper Il Messaggero last Saturday. Absolute liberty does not exist, he affirmed. Moreover, liberty is not meant to be used against others, but to favor others and to grow. The press, Bishop Fisichella insisted, needs to understand that the space available for liberty to be exercised is limited by the respect for others, not only as persons, but also for their beliefs and faith. That same day, the Vatican press office issued a statement on the matter of the cartoons. The right to freedom of thought and expression, it said, "cannot imply the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers." But equally deplorable, the statement added, are the violent reactions of protest: "Real or verbal intolerance, no matter where it comes from, as action or reaction, is always a serious threat to peace." Anver Emon, who teaches Islamic law at the University of Toronto, also deplored the violence by Muslim protesters. But, in a commentary published Monday by the Canadian newspaper National Post, Emon pointed out the difficult circumstances under which many Muslims live. In Europe, he noted, Muslims are often confined to the margins of society, suffering continual criticisms about the detrimental effect their presence will have on the continent. Then, too, the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian strife, have led to a high level of tension in the Mideast, Emon observed. Staged? Back in Denmark, meanwhile, additional details surrounding those infamous cartoons have put some of the protagonists in a different light. On Monday the British newspaper Guardian reported that three years ago the Jyllands-Posten refused to run drawings making fun of Jesus Christ. The Danish newspaper made that decision on the grounds that the drawings could be offensive to readers and were not funny. Then, on Tuesday, a Palestinian imam living in Denmark, Ahmed Abu-Laban, came in for criticism in an article published by the Wall Street Journal. Abu-Laban put together a delegation that toured the Mideast with a dossier about the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, the Journal reported. The dossier, in addition to the published cartoons, also contained other highly offensive pictures that never appeared in the Jyllands-Posten. The dossier also made a number of false affirmations about supposed ill-treatment of Muslims in Denmark. In fact, the whole row over the cartoons has been hijacked by extremists, according to Financial Times commentator Philip Stephens. The decision by the Saudi, Iranian and Syrian governments to withdraw their ambassadors from Copenhagen, for example, "was an act of political calculation," Stephens reported in an article published Tuesday. Knowing well that the Danish government does not control the press, the three Mideast governments nevertheless chose to escalate the controversy for their own motives, Stephens contended. Likewise, a state TV announcer in Iran depicted the cartoons as an insult to Islam made by the Danish government, not a private newspaper, the Associated Press reported Thursday. The AP also noted that in Syria, where the state has absolute control, few believe the protesters who stirred up violence could have gotten away with their acts without tacit government consent. High-tech tension The protests are also being fanned by extremists, the Washington Post reported Thursday. Text messages to mobile phones, Internet blogs and e-mails are being sent all over the world. Radical Islamic Web sites also echo calls to violence. The material circulated often contains false information and exaggerations, designed to inflame passions, the Post said. "We are confronted by misinformation passed on by mobile messages and Web logs at such high speed that it is picked up and acted upon before we have a chance to correct it," commented Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen at a news conference Tuesday. A recent meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference saw Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah appeal to Muslim leaders to unite in opposing extremists who, he argued, have hijacked their religion. "It bleeds the heart of a believer," Abdullah was quoted as saying in a Reuters report Dec. 7, "to see how this glorious civilization has fallen from the height of glory to the ravine of frailty and how its thoughts were hijacked by devilish and criminal gangs that spread havoc on earth." Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi also issued a solemn warning. Muslims across the world, he said, were in a state of "disunity and discord." Even non-Muslims could agree with that.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Thursday, February 09, 2006
It seems that the flawed data which stated that it would not be cost effective to let consumers choose their own programing was delivered by the research firm of Booz, Allen and Hamilton. It now is becoming suspect (to me, at least) that after enough Booz, and Allen a daze work, a Hamilton or two (or three!) got palmed. But, I suppose that after you've been telling the "budling" story long enough, bundling quality truth with the trashy truth is just second nature.
"Get cable now for only $12 a month!*
*for the first 3 months. A charge of more than you'd willingly pay is foisted on you after that time."
Which calls to mind an interesting affair with the local cable provider on Long Island back in the 80's. The company is called Cablevision and the story involved a town called Huntington. One of the largest communities in Suffolk County, it was a key to the financial security of Cablevision back in those days (Gads! I sound like I'm old or something!). So it was important to the company to have access to the hundreds of thousands of households in Huntington. Well the Town Council knew that too. They also knew that they didn't much like the programing or the ever-increasing price of it on Long Island either, sooooo..... they simply told the cable company that they either cut their prices from $22 a month (cheap, by today's standards) to $10 a month or they couldn't run any cable within the town limits... which, geographically, would be a disaster for Cablevision, as Huntington is large and in the center of the island. To go around the proscribed limits would have eradicated any profit from doing so. After the necessary court challenges, the town prevailed. (Hooray for solidarity!)
Well, guess what happened: If you were lucky/wise enough to live in Huntington, you paid half of what everyone else on Long Island paid. When the Consumer, Justice and Wisdom have coffee together, good things happen. It's just too bad that they don't have a Starbucks in every town on Long Island... and everwhere else, for that matter.
So it just goes to show you, you can be "mad as hell and you don't have to take it any more!"
USATODAY.com - Study: A la carte cable would be cheaper
...The director of a think tank dedicated to telling the truth about Islam says even though French President Jacques Chirac has been a friend of Islam for many years,
One can easily object to the reprinting of cartoons that reflect a disparaging view of Islam by invoking an alternative view of the prophet Mohammed. However, since he is the most cited reason by Muslims, by virtue of his messenger-to-the-god status, for all that they do, it would make sense for a cartoonist to focus on him as the pinion of purpose in a satirical criticism of Islam, purportedly a religion that has an enormous amount of apparent violence while professing peace at its core. Somehow, in light of Muslim behavior and rhetoric, to focusing on, let’s say… dietary customs and practices misses the point.
One might suspect that it isn’t entirely that the printing of images of Mohammad create the problem as much as it is that any criticism of Islam creates a problem for Muslims. Let’s face it honestly: their practices are rooted in the 7th century, replete with all of the violence and savagery that was more prevalent then than now (except at the hands of maybe an enforcer from a Columbian drug cartel). An enlightened view that is at all skeptical of the need to sexually mutilate young girls, behead the innocent for being different and destroy precious world art for the sake of hating it are worthy of world scrutiny. It would appear that it is this very scrutiny to which the Muslim world objects. Violently. Now that’s an interesting reaction from a peaceful religion that merely appears to be a savage political cult immersed in hatred and brutality.
As of late, some Muslim clerics have objected to the public display of hatred and violence that the world has come to know as “Islam in practice”. Joe Wilson objected toValerie Plame being “outed” as well. Covert operations don’t do very well when they suddenly become overt. Those Muslims that are objecting to the violence are the ones to watch for they are those that have the bigger picture in mind. To quote T.E. Lawrence, the great Lawrence of Arabia who knew so well the mind of the Muslim:
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." — Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
The idea to charge the companies which, at no charge to the networks, provide a reason for millions and millions of subscribers to pay billions and billions of dollars is greed, so unbridled, as to be leading the telcos like Verizon on a breakneck chase down a rocky road straight into a brick wall. The wall is made of logic and the chase is the result of corporate myopia. What the network providers need is a good optometrist.
Think of it this way: I have a bus line. I pick up passengers at the train platform. If my bus company is called Verizon, I'm proposing to charge the railroad company for picking up their passengers while also charging the passengers for the same trip. You'd think I'd be glad that the train delivered passengers for me to pick up, thereby justifying that I have a bus company at all, let alone one that affords me a steady stream of passengers through no effort on my part. Duh.
Broadband providers, Google face off on access - Tech News & Reviews - MSNBC.com
Is this the outcome based product of the school of "I think I can't, I think I can't, I think I can't"? Meanwhile, Sweden has declared it will be totally independant of foreign oil, or any other non-renewable resource for energy, within the next 15 years. Well, if I were the head of the largest publicly traded oil company, I'd tell my shareholders the same thing: "It can't be done, I tell you... it simply can't be done".
And to think we shrunk the computer from a room-sized behemoth to a desk top eyesore, all that we might put men on the moon; and we did it all in less than 10 years. Imagine that!
But then some say we didn't do it at all. And some say we need foreign oil. Go figure.
Exxon: America will always rely on foreign oil - Oil & Energy - MSNBC.com
"Men are generally idle, and ready to satisfy themselves, and intimidate the industry of others, by calling that impossible which is only difficult."
- Samuel Johnson
Sweden Aims to End Oil Dependency by 2020 - Yahoo! News
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Now, if it is a good thing for men to marry men and women to marry women, then the more people that agreed and followed this lifestyle, the better off we would all be. You can't have too much of a good thing, can you? And if abortion was a good thing as the courts seem to think it is, then the more babies we killed the better off we would all be. The more the merrier, right?
Those that believe in a future without children will leave our country as an inheritance to those that believe that one man and one woman, who don't kill their children, is the answer. The only question left is will they be Americans?
News from Agape Press: "...Two federal courts in the U.S. have opened the door for the continuation of what many pro-lifers believe is infanticide. Two appeals courts -- the Ninth Circuit and the Second Circuit -- have issued decisions that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is unconstitutional. That measure was signed into law by President George W. Bush in November 2003 but has been tied up in courts ever since. Jim Sedlak of American Life League says the recent rulings are wrong. 'We now have two courts,' he explains, 'that have said in effect that it is okay to kill a baby when it is in the last stages of being delivered.' Sedlak says the two appeals courts have determined that it is a right for someone to deliver a child -- except for the head -- and then to kill that infant before it can take its first breath. The logic of the court escapes Sedlak. 'It is really infanticide,' he says, 'but these courts have decided that that is a right protected somehow by our Constitution -- and they have struck down an attempt to ban this kind of procedure and ... insisted that it's a constitutional right to kill these babies.' [Bill Fancher]"
His lawyer, Mr. Fitzgerald, acknowledged that some of his client's sermons were "over the top," but he insisted that the messages were fundamentalist readings of the Koran.
British Jury Finds Muslim Cleric Guilty of Inciting Murder - New York Times
Human Events Book Service: The Life and Religion of Mohammed by J.L. Menezes
Monday, February 06, 2006
Actually, I think that Muslims just like to riot in an effort to bully through intimidation since they really have nothing else to offer.
Like we didn't see this coming...
By Chad Groening and Jody Brown
February 6, 2006
(AgapePress) - An outspoken critic of Islam says he's glad that several European newspapers had the courage to print cartoons depicting the religion's founder, Muhammad, as a terrorist. He believes Europeans may be waking up to the threat Islam poses to their way of life.
Associated Press reports that Muslim rage over caricatures of the prophet Muhammad grew increasingly violent on Sunday. Thousands of rampaging protesters in Lebanon torched the Danish mission and ransacked a Christian neighborhood. At least one person reportedly died and about 200 were detained. Violence escalated on Monday, says AFP, with five people killed in protests in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Syria, and warning shots fired outside a US consulate in Indonesia.
The anger was sparked by the circulation of caricatures of Muhammad that first appeared in a Danish newspaper last September. Islamic tradition forbids any depiction of the religion's holiest figure.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan today denounced the violence, adding this statement: "We would also urge people who are criticizing these cartoons to speak out forcefully against all forms of hate speech, including cartoons and articles throughout parts of the Arab world, which frequently espouse anti-Semitic and anti-Christian views."
Meanwhile, an American distributor of religious press releases has published the caricatures of Muhammad on its website. Christian Newswire has posted the cartoons, including one of an angry Muhammad with a fuse-lit bomb in his turban, and another of Muhammad on a cloud telling newly arrived suicide bombers, "Stop, Stop! We have run out of virgins!"
Christian Newswire director Gary McCullough says nobody paid for the web posting, and his company isn't "speaking on behalf of the Christian faith." But McCullough says he is concerned that some American media are censoring themselves in the face of "terroristic threats," and he wants to stand with those who will not be intimidated.
A 'Monstrous Overreaction'
Robert Spencer, director of the group Jihad Watch describes the Islamic furor over the cartoons as "a massive, monstrous, global overreaction."
"In the first place," says Spencer, "there's nothing offensive at all about most of the cartoons. A couple of them take note of the connection between Islam and terrorism, which no doubt [Muslims] find offensive." But for those in the Western world to notice it and for cartoonists to lampoon it is "pretty tame," he says, "compared to what political cartoonists do routinely to Western political figures."
But according to Spencer, that does not matter to the Muslims who are responding violently and fanatically. "The content of the cartoons is not really the problem at all," he shares. "Just the fact of the cartoons -- because Islamic law forbids representation of the prophet in any form, it's simply an insult to picture him. Even if the pictures were respectful, [many Muslims] would still be upset."
Spencer believes it is a good thing that Europe is finally waking up to the Islamic threat in its midst. "There is a reaction building in Europe, and that is something that's altogether positive actually," he says. "And the fact that so many places have published these things is very positive because it indicates that people are waking up to the fact in Europe that free speech [and] other liberties are threatened."
The Jihad Watch spokesman believes the free world -- in demonstration of their support for the principle of free speech -- should be standing resolutely with Denmark and the other European countries whose newspapers have published the cartoons.
- Is this what it's all really about?
- Iran's eagerness to be able to follow through on it's wish for Israel to be "wiped off the map"?
- Do they really care so much about cartooning diminishing the world's respect for Islam?
- Aren't they aware that they do this so well all by themselves?
CNN.com - Iranians target Austrian Embassy - Feb 6, 2006: "Protesters also waved placards and shouted slogans against the EU's stance on Iran's nuclear program."
They're so exemplary of how to behave within the world community.
CNN.com - Teen�dies�during protests over cartoons - Feb 6, 2006
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Is there any reason that the murderous mobs of NORMAL Muslims should be allowed to continue? Radical Muslims say they want peace. Normal Muslims scream "God is great" and then kill someone.
Telegraph News Flame of Islamic fury spreads to Beirut
Would you give an assault rifle to a depraved psychopath?
Could anyone justify putting a suicidal terrorist screaming "god is great" at the helm of a commercial jet full of innocent people and allow him to fly it into an office tower filled with even more innocent people?
Oh. That's right. We’ve already done that one.
Iran Vows Enrichment After U.N. Referral - Yahoo! News
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Can there be peace with Muslims? Look to the Qur’an for answers. As taken from the Islamic website, Islamonline:
- “If he (Messenger) were to invent any saying in Our Name, We should certainly have seized him by the right hand and We should then have surely cut off the artery of his heart"
- “Say; It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it (the revelation). I follow naught but what is revealed unto me"
[Qur'an 10:15 ]
- “No falsehood can approach it from the front, nor from the rear (i.e. neither directly nor indirectly). It is sent-down from Allah the All-Wise, the All-Praiseworthy.”
- “We indeed have sent down the recital (the Qur’an) and indeed are its Protectors (from any interference).”
- “In what way (We have revealed it), that We may make your heart firm thereby; and We have dictated it in stages.”
So we can read by the above verses how impossible it would be for anyone, not even Muhammad (Messenger)*, to have changed the words or the meanings of them, as they were given to him by Allah and were in no way his own words. Therefore, as stated in the above verses, since Allah gave the words, anyone who changes the meaning of them is subject to immediate and violent death, so typical of Allah’s ways, the ways of Islam. To change the words of Allah and the meaning of his message is to commit the offense of shirk, which has no forgiveness. We can conclude then that anyone who strays from the words of the Qur’an and tries to add his own touch or meaning to the words of Allah will become the victim of Islamic justice and it’s ways according to Allah.
Verse 10:15 makes it pretty plain that no one today can alter the meaning of the words of the Qur’an, even if it is to make it a nicer kind of religion, more suitable for practicing in a civilized society.
It can be changed neither in the past nor in the future as is made plain by verse 41:42.
Verse 15:9 states plainly that reinterpretation of the Qur’an is guarded against by Allah.
*To call Muhammad “Messenger” is a clear indication that he, Muhammad is not to have, nor is he to take, any responsibility for any of the content or meaning of the message.
The following is also from the same islamonline.net website, appearing directly below the above cited texts, intended for western eyes so as to justify Islam in light of the so-called “Satanic verses” for which Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death by the revered Islamic ruler, Ayatollah Khomeini:
It is seen from the above that the Qur’an repeatedly assures that Allah has protected it against any possibility of being tampered with directly or indirectly, that it is not for the Prophet to change it or add to it anything.
If he had done so, Allah’s severe punishment would inevitably and irresistibly have befallen him. These clear and positive statements directly contradict the story, which says that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, of his own accord or being deceived by Satan introduced something into the text of
revelation. Not only that. The alleged interpolation violated the fundamental teaching of the Qur’an – monotheism (Tauhid) and thus constituted the offence of shirk* which Allah warns elsewhere in the Qur’an that He shall under no circumstances forgive.
[TIMe's note: As we read that Allah would surely have killed anyone that tried to change the meaning of his message, then we can safely assume, as regards Muslims' claims that Islam is peaceful towards other religions and peoples, i.e. Jews and Christians, that Allah is asleep, impotent or non-existent since the idea of peace with other peoples is clearly against the teachings of the Qur'an. Which is not to say that the hatred that is bred into the hearts of Muslims is dead. To the contrary it is very much alive. Look to how they are behaving in the world community today and you can easily see that they are intent on eliminating the world's other inhabitants. From what we see of Muslim behavior of late, it would appear that they intend to do so quite soon.]
- The Qur'an makes mention of some of the more grave sins—covetousness, pride, envy, extravagance, niggardliness, ostentation, cheating, suspicion, slander, theft, etc.; and doctors of the law have compiled, lists of these "great" sins.
It is significant that *the offence of shirk invariably heads these lists. But, for the rest, popular Muslim literature bears eloquent testimony to the fact that the interminable regulations about things “allowed“ and “forbidden“ weigh like a yoke on the necks of the common people.
The mercy of God is further impaired by the Islamic doctrine of fate. The Qur'an asserts that the fate of man, whatever happens, has been fixed by inevitable decrees. But while this doctrine is often urged, and quite legitimately, as a reason for resignation and patience, it is not by any means confined to such purposes. In the Qur’an it is constantly obtruded in its crudest form, thus:
- "Allah will mislead whom He pleaseth, and. whom He pleaseth He will place upon the straight path." (Surah 6: 39)
- “And whoso willeth, taketh the way to his Lord. But will it ye shall not, unless Allah will it,” (Surah 76:29-30)
- “Whom Allah causeth to err, no guide shall there be for him,” (Surah 13:33)
- “Every man's fate have We fastened about his neck," (Surah 17:14)
And perhaps most tellingly as to why there can never be peace with Muslims:
“Had thy God pleased He would have made mankind of one religion; but those only to whom thy Lord hath granted mercy will cease to differ. And unto this hath He created them for the word of thy Lord shall be fulfilled, ‘I will fill hell with Jinn and men'" (Surah 11:120')
According to Mohammed, it is clearly Allah’s intention to fill Hell. It is his stated purpose. He therefore, according to the beliefs of Muslims, deliberately keeps men at odds on the foundations of differing religious beliefs. To do so is to his purpose and pleasure. Allah has said so himself. Anyone who tries to change these words is subject to death. Therefore there can never be peace with Muslims within a civilized society. Islam, by definition of the Qur’an, is a system by which Allah fills Hell with men by keeping them at odds by design. A good Muslim would never have peaceful existence in his heart as it is not in the heart of his god. He is not taught to seek peace except with other Muslims, and therefore does not seek it with non-Muslims. His purpose, if he truly serves Allah, is to help to fulfill the will of Allah which, as Allah has said, is to fill Hell with men. A good Muslim will do all in his power to send men to Hell. Witness the behavior and rhetoric of Muslims throughout the world today. The only “bad” Muslim is the one who does not help to fulfill the will of Allah which is, as stated by Allah and given to Muslims by his prophet, to fill Hell with men. When a Muslim says he wants peace he is telling you he wants you to lay down your arms and let him fulfill the will of Allah.
There can be no peace in the world as long as the world has both Islam and non-Muslims together.
But this is certainly not a fresh observation. The United States of America was founded by men who thought men should be free. Islam holds men as captive with no respect for love or freedom. One of our founding fathers clearly saw this and felt compelled to write about it.
According to John Quincy Adams:
"....On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE." (Adam's capital letters)"John Quincy Adams on Islam....."Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam's capital letters)""Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men."
--John Quincy AdamsSo, why can there never be peace with Muslims?
- "THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE" J.Q. Adams
- "The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men." J.Q. Adams
And, from an interview with Fr. Fessio on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, the transcript of which is linked on his blogsite.
"In the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it,..."
The following link takes you to a segment of that interview:
Irate Muslims Stage New Protests
From the press:
[After Friday prayers, another Muslim coalition, the Islamic Community Forum, issued a statement at one of Jakarta's most prominent mosques demanding the death penalty for the cartoonists who drew the caricatures and others involved in their publication. [And we're supposed to take them seriously, I wonder. The world is supposed to respect such attempts at bullying?]
In Malaysia, about 60 members of the main opposition party, the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, rallied Friday outside the Danish Embassy in Kuala Lumpur, calling for the destruction of enemies and demanding an apology for the publication of the cartoons. The protest ended without violence.]
From Forbes news service:
"... the leader of the Palestinian group Hamas called the cartoons "an unforgivable insult" that merited punishment by death." [Video/internet beheading, perhaps?]
"Mahmoud Zahar, leader of the militant Palestinian group Hamas, told the Italian daily Il Giornale the cartoonists should be punished by death. We should have killed all those who offend the Prophet and instead here we are, protesting peacefully." he said. [TIMe notes: Clearly, Hamas regrets being peaceful towards those that they do not like. Israel and the world should take notice. This is the true spirit of Islam. This is the true Muslim way.]
This is not religion. This is politics. This is hatred. This is a culture and system of death whose behavior is clear indication of how superior they think they are and how meaningless and of no value other human beings are. As we in the western world grow to fear them by virtue of their numbers and their willingness to vent their hatred on others, we must ask ourselves can we... should we ... can we afford to tolerate this in the world?
Meanwhile, in the United States, the federal government through a grant for the arts, pays to have a cucifix immersed in a jar of urine. The federal government pays to have elephant dung smeared on a portait of the mother of Jesus. And when the mayor of New York, in protest, withholds city funding of such madness he is labeled as a fundamentalist whacko. US citizens pay to see such desecration. Yet we, the American people give way to the Islamic hatred and brutish mentality of hatred and killing which is Islam. Violence and demands for death are their only real response. To be sincerely Muslim is to resort to killing anyone that disagrees with the hate-filled tenets of Islam. Not because you want to personally but rather because Allah, as deliverd by his messnger, has decreed that all good Muslims kill all non-Muslims or be condemned to hell. The same Hell which Allah declared that he would fill with men.
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan was quoted as saying the cartoons -- one depicting the founder of Islam wearing a turban resembling a bomb --showed [that] press freedom should have its limits. Muslims consider it sacrilegious to produce a likeness of the Prophet Mohammad. CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam. [and in a clear disregard for the merits of a free press]
"The cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad are an attack on our spiritual values. There should be a limit to press freedom," the state Anatolian news agency quoted Erdogan as telling French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy during talks in Ankara. [Are these people ready for atomic weapons?]
Does it ever occur to the Muslims, I wonder, that they are constantly attacking the spiritual values of other religions and peoples? They attack physically and then kill those that they disrespect. But then, by virtue(?) of the precepts and commands of the Qur'an, a good Muslim MUST kill all non-Muslims or he's better die trying. If he doesn't, he himself is condemned by Allah to die at the hands of other (better) good Muslims. So says the Qur'an. Clearly a good Muslim is one who is, by predestination, condemned to die either defending the otherwise (apparently) defenseless Mohammed or at the hands of other Muslims because he himself did not die trying to defend the otherwise defenseless Mohammed.
Clearly the principles on which America is founded do not sit well with Muslims. They've made it plain by their statements that they hate the idea of a free society that enjoys the exchange of ideas through a free press. For them the internet is not for the exchange of ideas. It it is for the broadcast of merciless beheadings of innocent civilians, which broadcasts are intended to intimidate those who think freedom and mercy are good things. Muslims do not agree that freedom and mercy are good things at all. It is clear that our freedoms and those of other western nations are an affront to the Musim ethic. Though Muslims do not protest all desecration as being wrong, never publicly condemning desecrations to other religious beliefs, they cannot accept that any society that has a free press can be allowed to continue unfettered when such continuance allows for that which offends them. The prime minister of Turkey thinks that he is within his rights to tell another soverign nation what they can do within their own countries' borders! It is clear that the followers of Islam believe they have the authority to rule the world. It is clear that Islam intends to rule the entire world. Every action, statement and behavior of Muslims in the world indicates what they believe. Witness Iran. They seem to believe that they can dictate to other countries the laws that the citizens of those countries must obey. Their intention to dominate is clear to all but the blind, willingly so afflicted or otherwise.
Why such a ban on images of the prophet?
If I were a wanted criminal (as Mohammed was in the early years of his rise to power through intimidation by murder, rape and pillage), I would not want my picture published on the TV, the newspaper or placed on a poster in the Post Office. Since the roots of Islam are in that thieving brigands declared themselves to be a religious group in order to avoid extermination, it would seem reasonable that Mohammed would also want to avoid having the general public become aware of what he looked like. It is logical that he would declare it to be a sacrilege to depict him by any means and in any medium. Though I have no way of knowing that this is the motive behind such a peculiar restriction (nor can it be shown that it wasn't), it is curious that the logic seems to fit. It is reminiscent of the scene in the Wizard of Oz wherein the Professor tells the pilgrims "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" for it is in obcurity and anonymity that all deceivers can thrive.
So it was that Mohammed was able to thrive; and it is in obscurity that all Muslims carry out their terror attacks on trusting civilian populations. Populations that trust the Muslim community and allow them to share in their country's riches because those same innocent civilians believe that Muslims truly do want to co-exist peacefully. Well, they do want to be free of restriction, but only to have enough time to annihilate the existing population. Only long enough to fulfill the will of Allah, according to the teachings of the Koran.
So it is based on this restriction against images of their prophet that good Muslims will offer their "blood and their souls" to enforce prohibitions against revealing any image of Mohammed. It would seem that Mohammed has, in the minds and hearts of good Muslims, replaced the god for whom he was merely a messenger, for it is the messenger that they defend with their lives and their blood.What do they offer to Allah himself? Since they have nothing more than their own lives and blood all that they could deliver beyond that would be the lives and blood of others. Truly these are not good candidates as neighbors. Ask the French, the Germans, the Australians, the Swedes, the Danes and the people of Indonesia. And of course, the Americans.
Governor, you can open your eyes now...
But then, I'm straining to view Islam through the eyes of justice and freedom as given me by the Judeo/Christian God of Justice and Mercy. That will never work any more than the idea of Muslims living in a Christian world or western society will work; it is only until there are no more Christians or Jews in the world will the Muslim population be at peace. That is, until they start killing each other.
How the French Problem Becomes the American Problem
From an email to me:
This has been around before, but is appropriate at this time to do some reflection on America's immigration and assimilation problems. Especially in light of what is currently happening in France. The French problem will become our problem--bank on it.
As the person who reported this says, it is chilling because it isn't a prediction of the future. It is something that is happening today, and not just in California.
[ We all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his
thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his Latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.
Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"
1. "Here is how they do it," Lamm said: "Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.
"The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons and Corsicans."
2. Lamm went on: "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the minority dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.
3. "We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort.
The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multiethnic and
multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'"
4. Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."
5. "Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add an underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."
6. "My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."
7. "My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other."
"A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods.
All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum", From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'unum,' we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."
8. "Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits -make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate."
"Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturist having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology, 'I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."
9. In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book.
"There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.'
American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."
Governor Lamm, walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream. ]
When did WW III start?
From an email to me:
When WW-III Started****1979
This is not very long, but very informative You have to read the catalogue of events in this brief piece. Then, ask yourself how anyone can take the position that all we have to do is bring our troops home from Iraq, sit back, reset the snooze alarm, go back to sleep, and no one will ever bother us again. In case you missed it, World War III began in November 1979... that alarm has been ringing for years
US Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Here is a copy of the speech he gave last month. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this action is so necessary.
AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!
That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed -AD) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to h it the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.
It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years.
America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism.
America's military had been decimated and down sized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.
Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.
In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.
Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.
Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.
The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.
Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.
Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.
Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.
The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in1988, killing 259.
Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war.
The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.
The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.
Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.
A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.
They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.
The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.
And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.
In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high officials in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.
I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has been changed forever.. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "... it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.
This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.
If you believe in this please forward it to as many people as you can especially to the young people and all those who dozed off in history class and who seem so quick to protest such a necessary military action. If you don't believe it, just delete it and go back to sleep.
After one of the recipients queried "Should we deport all Muslims? Too many liberals in congress for that to happen!"
To which I replied:
As long as we allow ourselves to remain dependant on the only product that they have to sell… oil… then we will forever be at their mercy. As long as we continue to make our own personal desires our top priority then we will always lack the fortitude and determination to become independent of foreign oil. If we can focus on the fact that we put Americans on the moon after deciding that we would in only ten years, I wonder that we aren’t capable of developing a new energy source that frees us from the slavery to the nations of Muslim radicals and the products that we crave so desperately that we’re willing to die for them; we’re even willing to die out for them.
Islam is a philosophical creation that masquerades as a religion while remaining dedicated to the extermination of all Christians, Jews and all non-Muslims. The Koran is nothing more than an instruction manual filled with commands to kill anyone that defies world domination by the Muslims. If you look at all of their activity throughout the world, it is evident. But if we continue to think of Muslims as just another religion that must be allowed to assimilate into our society then we are truly doomed, as they have no intention of assimilating; annihilating is more what they have in mind. And we keep giving them all that they need to do it.
They procreate without limit. We abort. They contain and control their appetites. We have become slaves to ours. We are depopulating our country as they replace the missing American children with new born Islamic children who will be raised to hate and kill any non-Muslim. They will simply over run us by sheer numbers. They sell us the oil to satisfy our unending craving while they use the proceeds to destroy us. They are quite skilled at using our vices and weaknesses against us.
Mr. Ouimette is exactly right: if we continue to look the other way while “snoozing” through this one, we will wake up slaves in a foreign county… on former American soil.
Should we deport all Muslims? Not exactly. We should declare their “religion” to be a philosophy of violence and hatred determined by the edict of their sacred central scriptures and doctrine, the Koran, and accordingly outlaw it within US borders. Anyone not willing to publicly, under oath, disavow the murderous teachings of the Koran should be denied the privilege (not the right!) to remain on American soil.
"I feel confident that we will, as a nation, either outlaw Islam or be swallowed by it... most likely in a hateful and violent manner. "
Well, yes. Isn't that what the ultimate Battle is all about - Love vs. Hate? God vs. Satan? I know the Koran calls for chopping off the heads of the infidels -- it was the inference I intended.
Funny story. Last year we read, as a class, The Book of the Lion by Michael Cadnum. It's a young adult novel - historical fiction - about the Crusades. It is written from the perspective of a Christian boy who is forced to be a knight's assistant in order to pay for a crime he committed. The knight, of course, goes off to the Crusades and the boy has to go with him. (It's not a very good story, although it did win the Newberry Medal. It's well written, but it never goes anywhere.) Since it is written from the Christian boy's point-of-view, the Muslims are referred to as "infidels" throughout the book. (In much the same way a book about racial segregation has the Whites calling the Blacks the n-word.) I had three Muslim students in my classes, one of whom's (whose?) mother was involved in the PTO, etc.
About halfway through the novel she sent me a lengthy e-mail voicing her objections to the book because it called the Muslims "infidels." She told me, "We consider that term to be the most vile insult." Ha! She went on to say that in today's climate I should have been more careful about the book I chose for the students to read, blah, blah, blah. She cc'd the principal who immediately wrote and asked if "we" should consider not using it anymore (as though "we" had chosen it in the first place! Not!). However, since the book was selected by the School Board, I informed them both that the situation was out of my hands. Her son was in my Honor's class and according to her, a freakin' genius. In truth he was a spoiled brat, the first born son of wealthy parents, and of slightly-above-average intelligence. At the time he wasn't earning very good grades in my class due to his concern with socializing rather than focusing on his studies; however, his mother was under the impression that I gave out the grades rather than the fact that students earned them and frequently called to ask me why I "gave"
Can you imagine the nerve of her to impress upon me the fact that "infidel" is a vile insult when every other day in Iraq they were releasing videos announcing that they were going to chop off the head of another "infidel"?? At the end of the unit the kids conducted research about the Middle Ages and gave presentations to the class. Guess what Muslim boy did? He made a saber (cardboard painted metalic silver), wrote some Arabic words on it - "Allah is great" or something (in fact, he informed me that his mother had written the words) and brought it in to the classroom! He explained how it was used, the importance of it to a Muslim, etc.!!! Ha! What a hoot public school is!
The pleasure is all mine.
"...non-Muslim uses of death do not specify a gruesome (or any) method to bring about that death. "
When you find the time to "read to the end" The Koran does, in fact, specify the "striking at their necks" and "striking at their heads" as the method of killing; this was done is Indonesia by those very good Muslim boys to the Christian girls on their way to Christian school. Though we see what they did as being horrible, they do not. No Muslim can condemn it unless he/she simultaneously condemns the words of the Koran. OR... says that, though Muhammad said all of these things he was really waxing poetic. He wants to convert Christians therefore to "Strike off their heads" is not really what he meant. Rather perhaps to strike off the heads of their beliefs, though he never says anything remotely like that. He never spoke in parables and only gave clear, explicit, direct commands and cursed all who did not follow them literally as "hypocrites, worse than infidels". Throughout the entire book it is always the same as regards "the enemy"... "the people of the Book"... "those who call God the Messiah, the son of Mary".
Suggestions that this book (the Qur'an) is metaphorical are inventive creations of the modern day Muslim living in western society out of economic need, trying to assimilate a hateful, destructive, greedy, spiteful creed of a band of brigands (the origin of Islam) into a peace-loving Judeo/Christian world ( I hesitated to use the "slash" there! Too Islamic!) The inability of this hateful philosophy to assimilate throughout the peaceful world is demonstrated in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Australia in recent months of rioting, burning and bombing; over ten thousand cars burned by rioting Muslims demanding that the Christian world give them what they want. And what is that? That the Christian world simply goes away. The president of Iran was very direct a few weeks ago when he said as much about Israel... that it "should be wiped off the map".
Though your horrified panic at the opening of your reply fully justifies your endeavors in drama, I don't think that should be the response of the Judeo~Christian world. It might be the response of the Muslim world when governments refuse to accept threats in the name of religion as tolerable within their borders. Islam should be declared a philosphy of violence and hatred and not a religion; and then outlawed for its ability, willingness and mandate to promote violence and hatred by teaching and preaching violence and hatred. Which is what I called for in my first email in this string.
Now, seriously. . .
Yes, I read some of each, but I am very busy grading papers and reading several books for upcoming PSU classes, so I didn't read all of everything. "Death" can be a metaphor for many things. In Victorian novels it means "orgasim," although I highly doubt that is what the Muslims had in mind! :) We are called to die unto ourselves so that we might enter the Kingdom of Heaven. In other words, "death" in this scenario, could mean that our faulty Christian or Jewish beliefs are to die so that we can be reborn as Muslims. However, and as I have said before, I don't truly buy this, for the aforementioned non-Muslim uses of death do not specify a gruesome (or any) method to bring about that death.
What I have been told is that those statements are metaphorical, not literal.
Since all of the statements regarding non-Muslims call for the death of said non-Muslims, how exactly does one take those statements as metaphors?
If, to be a peaceful American as a Muslim, one must disregard all the teachings of the Koran regarding non-Muslims, how then would anyone be a practising Muslim in America?
Is one who disregards the clear instructions of Muhammad and relegates all of them to metaphor, a Muslim?
On what basis, with respect to the Koran, does one declare oneself a Muslim?
Who determines what "kill" means, metaphorically speaking?
Who determines what "enemy" means metaphorically?
All the Muslim clerics that I have heard on video have called for the utter annihilation of America. The president of Iran has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Metaphorically, no doubt.
From all that I have read, and that would be a great deal over the last year; of all that I've heard in interviews with the heads of Muslim organizations, none has successfully diffused the violent directives in the Koran. They have simply said repeatedly that Muslims are peaceful people. However, if one is not Muslim, then the directive is to avoid peace like the plague... to be peaceful with a non-Muslim is grounds for death for a Muslim. How does one translate that metaphorically? Rape and steal translates to....?
As I said initially, one cannot be a true Muslim in America without being bound by the tenets of Islam to convert or kill all non-Muslims. As regards the president, this should be prosecuted as treason.
Did you read the material and links that I forwarded?
If, in fact, he said that, and providing his words were not taken out of context. :)
It seemed to me that you took my statement out of context when you overlooked the "perhaps" part of it. Granted, that was stated in the previous e-mail; hitting the "Reply" gives me the impression that we are having a conversation that is not constrained by the time lags between each e-mail, so I don't think to reiterate my previous statements.
Yes, I do think that Muslims would like to chop off our heads. (The fact that they have done so, repeatedly, convinces me that this is certainly true for at least some Muslims.) What I have been told is that those statements are metaphorical, not literal. I realize that by claiming the former they could well be hoping to lull us into false hope so that we are unprepared when the latter turns out to be true. I presented the "perhaps" statement as a possibility to be considered. That being said, I do believe that not all Muslims would partake in removing our heads, just as many people of other faiths do not subscribe to all that their religion teaches. Does this make them hypocrites? Of course, but personally, I prefer a hypocrital Muslim to a zealot! :)
Meanwhile, trusting in God will help you to not lose your head over it all! LOL!
I don't think I took your words out of context. I certainly didn't mean to. What I read was a reference to a scriptural passage that is translated, not interpreted, to mean that it would be better to remove the offending eye or hand than to spend all eternity in hell, suffering as a result of the actions of the offending body parts. The Christian scripture admonishes the individual to deal with his own spiritual problems. Though the language is strong it is, nonetheless, clear: IF it is necessary (as in, no other way will do) then "it would be better " to remove YOUR OWN offending body parts. This is not a matter of interpretation. It's pretty clear. It is stated, not interpreted, as a comparative value, not as a behavioral instruction. It is clear.
[BTW, the Bible also says that if one were to infect children with sinfulness, then it would be better for the culprit if he were never born. Is this to be interpreted as Jesus' approval of abortion, under certain circumstances, according to the quality of the life of an individual?]
And also, still in context, is the Koran. If you read the texts and links to texts which I forwarded to you, then I would be grateful if you could explain how one can interpret those words to mean anything other than what they say without simply making stuff up. Without calling a command to kill a Jew as to mean to metaphorically "kill" him by making him your friend and welcoming him into your home as a brother to "strike off his head" of alienation and feelings of being the object of hatred and scorn. It would appear that many Muslims think it means to kill him... with bombs and bullets and "striking off his head" literally, so as to end his life. The Koranic text is perfectly clear. It doesn't suggest any other interpretation; however to try to live as a Muslim in western society demands another meaning, yet there is none to be found in the texts as written. It is in this context that I suggested that the precepts of Islam are, unless fully renounced by the "believer", to be seen as a threat to the life of the president of the US (a person "of the Book"
As the Europeans declared that Scientology is a fabricated "religion", manufactured to serve its own ends and at the peril of others, so too should Islam be declared to be a psycho/political philosophy designed to justify the destruction of anyone whose property is desired by a Muslim and, as it promotes the violent destruction of this country and its citizens, be outlawed.
In this country, Scientology is accepted by the US government and the IRS as a religion. In Germany and Italy and a few other European countries it has been declared a business that offers "salvation" in the form of science fiction, but only to those that have tens of thousands of dollars to fork over to the "church". Otherwise, you're flat out of luck. Its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, was quoted by a friend as having made the statement that ~ to easily make a million dollars, one need only start a religion~. He said those words in 1951 when his book on the psychology of Dianetics was first published. The following year he declared his psycho/philosophy to be a religion and sought and gained tax exemption. (Simply Google "Scientology" and you'll have more reading material than you can handle.)
So why am I talking about Scientology and fraud? Because if, as I first proposed, the words of the Koran call repeatedly for the death at the hands of good Muslims, those who do not claim Allah as God then the Koran is an instrument of overthrow of the US government and its adherents should be declared as outlaws.
What does a country do to eradicate a threat to almost every citizen in its society?
What does one do when one's house is infested with vermin? What does the Bible say to do when something evil infests your soul? What does the Bible say to do with a body part that is causing your destruction? These are indeed difficult questions. Had I a solution, I certainly would have proposed it. However, I certainly do believe that doing nothing is not a solution.
[Please note that my opinion on this matter is based on the statements of Muslims who have abandoned that ideology. It is also formed by watching a video of a Muslim cleric of great renown in the middle east, as televised on Al-Jazeera TV, that called for the ~utter annihilation of the United States, its government and all other infidel pigs~. Not simply the words of a radical but rather programming on the television for public consumption. The audience (in the mosque) was large and very approving. They all looked and behaved as normal people. It is simply that this is what they are taught to believe]
Not intended to be literally interpreted by whom? There is nothing in the Koran that says that a Muslim can be at peace with anyone other than another Muslim. Nothing. There is, however, a great deal to the contrary. Factually, the Koran says only the direct opposite. All the time. Always.
To say that the religion of Islam supports peace with non-Muslims is to say that the New Testament supports murder (by interpretaion) and slaughter of innocents because it was "... not intended to be literally interpreted." The Koran preaches only hatred and killing. It never ever ... not once... accepts or allows for peace with non-believers. It always condemns such peace as the act of a traitor deserving of death (how does one interpret this?). Any interpretation that says otherwise is not Islamic... it is fiction. Or more accurately, deception.
""In the Koran, Muhammad made the rift between Muslims and the rest of us so wide that they are not even permitted to be your friends. I will share three verses to show this. (For everything I show you, there are many more verses. I just don't feel like rewriting the Koran.) Verse 3:117 - "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people." Verse 5:51 - "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another." Verse 60:13 - "Believers, do not make friends with those who have incurred the wrath of Allah." If you are not a Muslim and you think you have a Muslim friend, you better read the Koran. According to the Koran, they are either pretending or sinning.""
If you have Muslim friends that tell you that they should not kill you if you do not convert to Islam, then they are not very good Muslims. There is nothing in Islam that preaches love of mankind, let alone love of non-Muslims. Islam teaches that a man's own family... his children... are a distraction from doing the work of Allah. As a distraction... a temptation to not follow Allah's will... a man's love for his family must be ignored.
If a Muslim professes love of one, other than another Muslim, they are in grave danger from a good Muslim who is under direct instruction in the Koran to kill the hypocrite... that Muslim who cowers from killing Jews and Christians and other non-Muslims. There is nothing in the Koran to say otherwise. This command is never refuted by Muhammad or the Koran. (In the New Testament, Jesus says that He is establishing a New Covenant. That the Old Covenant is completed. This never happens in Islam. Any other interpretation of the Koran is heresy.) Any other teaching is not from the Koran... such teaching would only come from Christianity which a good Muslim must annihilate according to Islamic law, per Muhammad.
Read the information from the following link. Read all of it. Define how it applies, or does not apply, to the statements of your friend.
Let me know how much of that no longer applies and when and how it was changed and by whom.
In Islam, is the befriending of a non-Muslim (as in the case with your friend) no longer punishable by death at the hands of a faithful Muslim who has not, by the instruction provided in the Koran, become a hypocrite, deserving of death?
If not, when did this modification occur? By whose authority did it occur?
Do the orthodox Muslims, those that blow up non-Muslims, accept this "modified" brand of Islam or have the moderates simply added themselves to the list of those to be destroyed by the faithful Muslims who adhere to the holy teachings of Allah's Apostle, Muhammad?
Muhammad hated hypocrites even worse than he did Jews and Christians . Hypocrites are the worst enemy of Islam and are considered traitors. According to Muhammad, you cannot be a liberal or moderate Muslim. (Your friend would be hated by Muhammed and cursed by Allah, according to the Koran) There are only orthodox Muslims and hypocrites. In the Koran, there are only three groups of people. These are Muslims, hypocrites, and non-Muslims.
Verse 3:117 - "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people." Verse 5:51 - "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another."Verse 60:13 - "Believers, do not make friends with those who have incurred the wrath of Allah." If you are not a Muslim and you think you have a Muslim friend, you better read the Koran. According to the Koran, they are either pretending or sinning.
Let's try verse 9:111 - "Allah has purchased from the faithful their lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for the cause of Allah, they will slay, and be slain." Oops, I have never known any evangelist who went out slaying or killing those to whom they were evangelizing. I believe that this proves beyond any doubt that the war Muhammad keeps talking about in the Koran has to do with actual warfare and killing. So keep in mind that these Muslim leaders [are] lying to you, the Muslims in the Middle East including Osama Bin Ladden are not lying to you, and that the US Muslims who have said Islam is a religion of peace have no credibility. [Their statements of peace have no foundation in their scripture. They are statements that have nothing to do with Islam]
If a Christian interprets the words of Christ so that he no longer follows the teachings of Christ, is he still a Christian? Likewise, if a Muslim interprets the words of Muhammed in such a manner as to longer be following the instructions of the Koran, is he still a Muslim?
I agree. My point was that it was not intended to be literally interpreted. The same may be true for the Koran - (Muslim friends have assured me that this is the case).
In defense of the Judeao-Christian tradition, and in sharp contrast to Islam, the eyes and hands that are to be removed are those of the individual him/herself. It does not instruct one to remove body parts of others that we find to be offending. But then, if that were the case, we would soon cease to be able to see fault in oithers and ever increasingly forfeit the means by which to effect any violent solution upon the offending party.
Please don't misconstrue this as a defense of Islam, for it is most definitiely not. However, the Bible instructs us to pluck out our offending eyes, remove offending hands, etc. We understand what that means and do not take it literally. Perhaps the same type of interpretation is needed for certain parts of the Koran. (BTW, only Muslims are supposed to read/interpret it -- clever huh? ; )
Conversations (from an email)
As for Ms.Coulter, I have admired her writing for years because she so smartly cuts to the chase. If securing our country from attack of the explosive kind is our primary objective, then I agree with her wholeheartedly. If we recognize, however, that the violence wrought in the name of Allah is not solely against our people but also, if not more so, against the documented principles that allow us to experience the freedom that frightens them so much... if they were allowed such freedoms in their own countries, Islam would be abolished within a decade. That's what they fear most as the East increasingly needs to merge with the West for economic reasons. And in this process only one culture will survive. The idea of multiculturalism is utter nonsense. Name one society throughout all history where this ever happened and worked. None. There, look at all the research time I just saved you.
The question that has been increasingly looming in my mind is:
"Is Islam a religion or a political persuasion bent on destroying that which it can't absorb?"
Personally, I don't see it as a religion any more than I see Nazism or Communism as a religion. Remember the early Christians lived as communists in the pure sense. The charity and concern at its heart was religious in nature. However as we all have become aware, Communism can also be a political persuasion and it is not good.
I'm inclined to view Islam in the same way.
though it is certainly not what might be said in delicate circles, i think Islam should be outlawed as being detrimental to the welfare of our country. Its precepts demand our destruction and if we watch it happen, like so many sheep, then it's likely what we deserve.
Conversations (from an email)
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." – T.E. Lawrence
Conversations (from an email)
The fact that the Holy Scriptures of Islam say, and I paraphrase: "Those that won't convert to Islam are to have their heads cut off"...(or something very close) demands that we ask of a high level Muslim cleric who has recognition within the Muslim community and in the population in general... Mr. Hooper from CAIR perhaps, as an authority on Islam:
1) Do good Muslims follow all the laws/precepts of the Koran/Qu'ran? Why?
2) Do Muslims have the freedom within their religious conduct to pick and choose which parts of their holy scriptures they will follow/obey? How so and why? How do we know which Muslim follows which teachings?
3) Does threatening to kill, by virtue of an all-inclusive general statement of belief as spelled out in the Koran, as a non-converted Christian, the President of the United States (and all the members of Congress and the military), if he refuses to worship Allah constitute a criminal act? If not, why not?
And, of the American people, it should be asked:
1) Is Islam a religion or a political philosophy that threatens American security as an anti-American political agenda, bent on the destruction of this country by virtue of its "holy scripture" and its teachings? If not, why not?
2) Should the practice of Islam by those who believe/follow all of its precepts be banned in this country? If not, why not?
3) Should avowed Muslims be allowed to live in America if, by being good Muslims, they must obey their holy scriptures and kill all Christians who insist on remaining? If not, why not?
4) Am I a good American citizen if I don't thoroughly investigate this philosophy of death to Christians and Jews?
I "Googled" the phrase "koran kill christians"
Below are links to just two of the 506,000 responses that came back after 0.22 seconds of searching. (I guess the idea is not very obscure, having so many entries on the subject found so quickly)
Is not seeing Islam as a force of death in America, focused on the death of all Americans, a form of denial?
And from another:
But don't take my word about who the unbelievers are, take the word of Muhammad. I want you to notice that he placed special emphasis on Jews and Christians (People of the Book.) We will start with verse 5:17 - "Unbelievers are those who declare: 'God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.'" Oops, I bet some of you blindly believed the Muslims who have been going around speaking at Christian churches saying they worship the same God we do (we already proved that to not be true), they also believe in "The Same Jesus" and even believe in Him more than we do, and that Islam and Christianity are the same religions. You should have read the Koran instead of letting the liars spoon feed you. Always remember this, it is considered a good deed for Muslims to successfully lie to their enemy. Then they go home, call you suckers, and laugh at you for being fools.
Patty Murray's failure to observe the facts...and her own writings!
On Mar 30, 2005 12:51 PM, mailto:Senator@murray.senate.gov
Thank you for contacting me about Theresa Marie Schiavo of Florida. I appreciate hearing from you about this very personal and difficult matter. As you know, following a lengthy legal battle Mrs. Schiavo's husband authorized the removal of her feeding tube on Friday March 18, 2005. On Monday March 21, 2005 Congress passed private legislation allowing Mrs. Schiavo's parents to seek relief through the Federal Court system, which the President promptly signed into law. This legislation passed the Senate by a Voice Vote. Because I had already departed the country for an official Senate trip, I was not present to vote on the Schiavo bill. I do not believe that it was appropriate for the Congress and federal government to become involved in this very complex and personal matter. In the future, legislation dealing with such sensitive issues must be allowed to work through the regular process of committee and floor debate and consideration. In general, I believe these decisions are best left to families, their faith, and their physician without outside interference. Again, I appreciate hearing from you on this difficult matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me about other issues that are important to you. Sincerely, Patty Murray, United States Senator -------
--- Forwarded message ---------- From: T "mailto:Senator@murray.senate.gov" Senator@murray.senate.gov href="mailto:Senator@murray.senate.gov" Senator@murray.senate.gov Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 21:15:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Response from Senator Murray
Dear Ms. Murray,
If you followed the story closely, and I'm sure you did, you will have noticed that her family did not want her to be starved and dehydrated to death, but her estranged, adulterous husband did. Her faith clearly condemned it, as the Vatican declared it as cruel and as murder. And within highly regarded medical circles there was some consternation as to the actual state of Terri Schiavo, though no thorough examination was permitted by the man that wanted her to die, to which the courts remanded custody. So though I believe you when you say you "believe these decisions are best left to families, their faith, and their physician", I wonder that you fully understood that what happened in Florida was not according to her first family... the one's to whom God sent her initially (do you have a daughter?)..., her faith nor the whole of the medical community that was involved. If congress doesn't involve itself in preserving such constitutional issues as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", then I question what good purpose is served by congress and those who accept taxpayer dollars to represent the people. I truly and sincerely hope that congress will get involved if it ever comes to preserving your own life if you should ever find that you are unable to do so yourself.
Sincerely concerned about the America my children will inherit,
A letter sent to the governor of Pennsylvania regarding the placement of a bronze plaque to commemorate the first gay march as if it was in the same league as civil rights marches for equality of black people in America. The governor intended to honor two guys for practicing sodomy and demanding that everyone else say that is was a good thing for them to do so. How do you spell twisted?
Governor: You have a unique position in that you preside over the handling of matters concerning the state of Pennsylvania (the state where I was raised and where most of my family still lives) regarding the placement of a marker to what many would consider twisted thinking. But you have a further responsibility of safeguarding, for all Americans, the landmarks of our country's heritage, a heritage for which tens of thousands of American men and women have given up their very lives and many more risk them still today.
To deface the seat of our very sacred democracy (a system of government, by definition, where the majority gets to decide what will happen; at last count, homosexuals are vastly in the minority …3% I think is the official number…and the majority of this country overwhelmingly is opposed to the homosexual agenda!) with the insult of a heraldic marker in praise of homosexuality...think about it...a marker to denote such behavior which was once considered illegal by the very nature of its un-naturalness... akin to bestiality...we now draw attention to it as if it were exemplary and worthy of emulation. A marker about sexuality... considered by the majority to be perverse. Think about it… a marker to draw attention to the persistence of some people to flaunt their aberrant behavior in the face of the majority. If this is not unfortunately ignorant then it is at best, grossly irresponsible. As I recall, in preparation for the bi-centennial festivities, which centered in Philadelphia as the birthplace of a nation, the city's decision makers allowed for the demolition of two historic houses to make room for the much need fast food restaurant, McDonalds. Appalled, congress passed legislation forbidding the city of Philadelphia… unique legislation!... from removing or demolishing any structures without congressional approval. Imagine how it will feel for you to have a congressional spanking, as did Frank Rizzo, the mayor of Philadelphia, for being too irresponsible to be allowed to be in charge of the affairs of his city as the marker which you plan to present to the city is recalled as inappropriate. Surely I don't deny that people who are inclined to enjoin in
homosexual behavior are worthy of respect as people, yet I am mindful that respect should be earned, not granted. But to single them out for their
homosexuality in a public way with a government agency sponsored commemoration seems perverse and unfair to the rest of the taxpayers who comprise that vast majority of your constituency. Is there a proposal to honor the majority… those who enjoy their sexuality in a natural way?
Or should there be a movement to bring heterosexuality to the fore and make human sexuality a cause for markers on public buildings? The more one thinks about it the more bizarre it seems.
And to say that it's about civil rights is patently absurd; unless of course
prostitution as a profession should also get a marker. Though it is presently illegal as was homosexuality, it needn't be. After all it's simply a mater of which laws we pass, right? Then we can extol the virtues of all those hard working women who simply want to express themselves sexually as an art form and get paid for their contribution to society. Where does it stop?
Seriously, I urge you, as the governor of the great state of Pennsylvania, to use some sense here instead of giving in to the urge to follow the trend. It's that sort of behavior that takes lemmings over the edge.