Sums up many of my thoughts

Deacon Tim over at Sacraments Wholesale pretty much summarizes my thoughts and feelings on the whole Redding case.

Sphere: Related Content

Gah, make me puke

Earlier today News reports stated that premarital sex is on the rise in Iran, the explanation of which is easy according to the Iranian Government's sociologist,

However, Hojatoleslam Ghasem Ebrahimipour, a sociologist, told Shabestan news agency that the trend was due to the availability of premarital sex, and feminism among educated women. "When a woman is educated and has an income, she does not want to accept masculine domination through marriage," he said.

Make me groan...

Sphere: Related Content

Unlike this, Fogle's Fatwa ended as quickly and less spectacularly than sex with someone who has ED and no blue pill.

Damien Thompson the snark behind the spook at Holy Smoke, points out that one of the "mainstream" Muslim Advocacy Groups in the UK, who are the media go to people when it comes to Britains 'moderate' Muslims, are still after the identities (lives) of eight Sufi Muslims who assisted a think tank in their research of the amount of hate literature being distributed in Britain's Mosques. From their post "The Hunt for 8 Sufi Zio-Con Frauds":

MPAC now wants to find out exactly who these Sufis are, who are working for the Zio-Con think tank. There were 8 Sufis who worked for them, and all apparently have gone abroad to hide while the storm is raging. They worked, according to Policy Exchange for over a year on the project, so some Muslim out there must have come into contact with them.

Who are they, what are their backgrounds … MPACUK will dig deeper and expose every last detail of the Sufis who tried to destroy their own community.

If you know who they are – please write in and we will expose these men and women for all the Muslim community to see. Write in now and let us do what the incompetent idiots in the Mosque should be doing, protecting our community.

And while if you replaced the language for Muslims with language about the SC Blogosphere and SC 'Conservatism' and squinted really hard you might, just might, have read hints of Fogle, the fact is - his Fatwa, in longevity of interest and scale of vehemenence pales in comparison to these 'moderate' folks. Unlike this, Fogle's Fatwa ended as quickly and less spectacularly than sex with someone who has ED and no blue pill.

As if to underscore just how radical these 'moderates' are - just look at their home page. Everything that happens to Muslims are the 'Zionists' fault. (And if you feel like donating to the Muslim version of Human Events then click here)

And while I'm a liberal and by far not an ultra zionist or exceptionalist and believe that the two state solution is the only solution to the perpetual crisis of middle east politics, this is just too much and too disgusting. Are their are recriminations? Sure on both sides and we must admit that no one's hands are clean in this matter, but seriously?

The likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda are a boil on the face of Islam, and one that has festered for so long that political leadership in so called nations are neutered and can't offer any sort of option to the radicalization of Muslims. Some states capitalize and utilize this, Iran and Saudi Arabia, while other despotic regimes are wary of democratization (as are the Western Powers that prop them up) because of the ideologies that have spread like a plague of Biblical proportion amongst the people, states like Egypt, Pakistan, amongst others. At some point in time the population will slough off the radicals and it can only come either at the tip of the sword or the tip of the pen with the preference being the latter.

Saying such though will get you burnt in effigy and Fatwa's placed upon your life. The Pope insulted the Islamic world when the "gotcha liberal media," to quote OLW, took his words out of much needed context - it caused an up roar.

Spike has an interesting book review for an upcoming publication that posits that Liberalism has created their own multicultrialist monster in an Islam that has become a caricature of itself as a response to European multiculturalism - it's own Dutch Cartoon series. I can acknowledge as much. Liberalism's understanding of multiculturalism - especially in Europe - though never as entrenched in America - shifted, to overemphasize the ghetto as an appropriate way to foster multiculturalism. As the review states, Liberals' "abandonment of the politics of universalism in favour of ethnic particularism, the shift from the politics of ideology to the politics of identity" helps create within various groups a fractured since of identity that is often times in contention with each other. "Multiculturalism didn't create radical Islam, but it [does] create a space for it..." Perhaps, though, the most saddening assesment of Liberalism that the review offers is this,

Twenty years ago, most liberals defended Rushdie’s right to publish The Satanic Verses despite the offence it caused many Muslims. Today, many argue that whatever may appear to be right in principle, in practice one must appease religious and cultural sensibilities because such sensibilities are so deeply felt. The avoidance of ‘cultural pain’ is seen as more important than what is regarded as an abstract right to freedom of expression.

This as the reviewer states has created a culture of greivences, which is why Muslims - and other groups (including >>gasp<< conservatives!) And while the liberal "outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: [in that] instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment," (Betrand Russell) acknowledging ambiguity and the tenuousness of doctrines in our journey towards Truth doesn't mean one has to demure and simply roll over at the first sign of reproach.

This is how this voice of "moderate" Islam in Britain, the folks at MPAC, which probably exists in the physical world in the Muslim ghettos of London and South England, get to make such pronouncements and be taken seriously and as apparently they are by the media types like Channel 4 amongst others. This is how and why when Israel does defend itself generally the world is less than squeamish to support their efforts despite weighted justification, this is why Western Europe and especially Britain has a problem with matriculation (yeah they've probably forgotten that word), this is how in America the majorities of the right have learned (from the Muslim world and the old [now dead?] identity politics of the last 40 years) to take advantage of this built in liberal defect and frame pro gay rights movements as Christophobia, and frame abortion politics in context of America's original sin - slavery, both of which are arguements as absurd as Islamic conspiracy theorists finding ways of blaming everything on a Jew sitting in a room anywhere on the planet.

And while Fogle may not be pissed about this post, who knows how much I'll piss off the guy in Charlotte, Samir ibn Zafar Khan - our very own local Al Qaeda sympathiser and promoter, maybe I'll get a Fatwa like Rushdie, and those 8 Sufis.

Sphere: Related Content

Christmas Wishes...

...from the President of Iran? Yes, Mahmoud is delivering the "Alternative" Christmas Message on Britain's Channel 4. What's surprising is the message is not at all what one would expect from such an ethnocentristic and ravenous lunatic. Remove the Muslim context and one could almost expect to hear such a message from the Pope, or even Jaba the Hagee.

[Aside: I'm sure some of my more 'librul' friends feel comfortable drawing similarities between B.XVI and M.A]

The full text from Ruth Gledhill:

In the Name of God the Compassionate the Merciful.Upon the anniversary of the birth of Jesus, Son of Mary, the Word of God, the Messenger of mercy, I would like to congratulate the followers of Abrahamic faiths, especially the followers of Jesus Christ, and the people of Britain.

The Almighty created the universe for human brings and created human beings for Himself. He created every human being with the ability to reach the heights of perfection. He called on man to aim to live a good life in this world and to work to achieve his everlasting life. On this difficult and challenging journey of man from dust to the divine, He did not leave humanity to its own devices. He chose from those He created the most excellent as His Prophets to guide humanity.

All prophets called for the worship of God, for love and brotherhood, for the establishment of justice and for love in human society. Jesus, the Son of Mary is the standard-bearer of justice, of love for our fellow human beings of the fight against tyranny, discrimination and injustice.

All the problems that have bedevilled humanity throughout the ages came about because of humanity followed an evil path and disregarded the message of the Prophets.

Now as human society faces a myriad of problems and succession of complex crises, the root causes can be found in humanity's rejection of that message, in particular the indifference of some governments and powers towards the teachings of the divine Prophets, especially those of Jesus Christ.

The crises in society, the family, morality, politics, security and the economy which have made life hard for humanity and continue to put great pressure on all nations have come about because the Prophets have been forgotten, the Almighty has been forgotten and some leaders are estranged from God.

If Christ was on earth today undoubtedly he would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers.

If Christ was on earth today undoubtedly he would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over.

If Christ was on earth today undoubtedly he would fight against the tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems, as He did in His lifetime. The solution to today's problems can be found in a return to the call of the divine Prophets. The solution to these crises can be found in following the prophets -- they were sent by the Almighty, for the happiness of humanity.

Today, little by little, the general will of nations is calling for fundamental change. This is now taking place. Demands for change, demands for transformation, demands for a return to human values are fast becoming the foremost demands of nations of the world. The response to this demand must be real and true. The prerequisite to this change is a change in goals, intentions and directions. If tyrannical goals are repackaged in an attractive and deceptive package and imposed on nations again, the people, awakened, will stand up against them.

Fortunately, today as crises and despair multiply, a wave of hope is gathering momentum. Hope for a brighter future, hope for the establishment of justice, hope for real peace, hope for finding virtuous and pious rulers who love the people and want to serve them – and this is what the Almighty has promised.

We believe, Jesus Christ will return, together with one of the children of revered
messenger of Islam and would lead the world to a rightful point; to a world of love, brotherhood and justice. The responsibility of all followers of Christ and followers of Abrahamic faiths is to move towards that and to prepare the way for the fulfilment of this divine promise and the arrival of that joyful, shining and wonderful age. I hope that the collective will of nations will unite in the not too distant future and with the grace of the Almighty Lord, that shining age will come to rule the earth.

Once again, I congratulate one and all on the anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ and I pray for the New Year to be a year of happiness, prosperity peace and
brotherhood for humanity. I wish you every success.'

Part of me wants to quote James 2:19, but even that's to harsh. I'm not adverse, however, to acknowledging the subtleties of the situation and quote Mr. Stephen Smith the head of Britain's Holocaust Centre, “Many of his political and historical views are very dangerous and do not uphold the views in his message. I think this benign message is deception. People need to be alert to the fact that this is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Whether this is really an act of deception is only known to Mahmoud, but his past actions and statements belie the point that as syrupy and sweet as the rhetoric may be there is vinegar behind the gilded flourishes of brotherhood and commonality.

He speaks of righting injustices, of being charitable, of fighting tyranny and discrimination, practically sings the Magnificat of Mary, though he is no Marian supplicant or imitator. To quote the same Jesus that Mahmoud extols:

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye (Matthew 7:3-5)

Sphere: Related Content

QOTD: The Historian's Craft

... it sometimes seems to the general reader that "dispassionate historian" is an oxymoron.

- John Derbyshire, When Worlds Collide

Derbyshire in the preface to two excellent book reviews is commenting on the fact that in our day writing about Islam automatically elicits the question what's the angle.

In the case of Islam as Derbyshire points out you have Islamophobes and alarmists on one hand like - Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, and Ibn Warraq who he says are "keen to tell us about the fundamental, irreducible wickedness of Islam and its founder," and then on the other hand you have everyone else, albeit in not so neat a categorization.

It doesn't automatically mean that the rest are Islamophiles - certainly there are some of those, but also included would be apologists (David Lewis who he is reviewing in this piece) and that oxymoron he spoke of - those who's approach to History is of the more traditional variety which is simply to understand (through your own cultural schema) and explain the ebb and flow of history (Hugh Kennedy).

This though can't simply be explained as a product of our own national history, and the cultural rupture that occurred nearly nine years ago, that's only part of it.

It can't simply be written off as the intellectual dalliances of a few elites, as he notes "Historians with a bill of goods to sell are of course nothing new. Gibbon's pro-classical, anti-Christian bias; Macaulay's Whiggism; Carlyle's heroes; the Marxists' modes of production; Spengler's declinism; [and] Churchill's Anglo-Saxon triumphalism" Having bias doesn't automatically mean revisionism, it simply is extolling some attribute or group over another.

Even more so it's also a product of critical theory, post modernism if you will -- and to be trite, everyone's doing it - we're all Post Modernists now!

[cue creepy tragic music: DUH DUH DUUHHH]

And by everyone, in regards to history - replace Islam with any other ethnocultural group or value. The same question will be asked, what's the angle?

Critical Theory used to be the plaything of the liberal elites in academia - but with the increasing democratization of knowledge, the tools of critical thinking have broken free of their socio-economic, ethnocultural restraints. As Tim Cavenaugh so wryly put it in Reason Magazine, "the mainstreaming of pomo thinking has been largely a stealth project, something Americans do without committing overt acts of academia. We thought we were trying to clear away the cobwebs of shoddy analysis and elite hypocrisy, but all along we were bringing the tools of critical thinking to the masses."

For Historians, much like the rest of society which has been pomo'd, what Derbyshire here laments is that truth get's spun to fit the desired narrative. In the case of Spencer - it's to demonize Islam, for Lewis (the subject of Derbyshire's review) it's a beef with the dominant white western culture. To underscore the point,

The new Carolingian order [of the later 8th century]...was religiously intolerant, intellectually impoverished, socially calcified, and economically primitive. Measured by these same vectors of religion, culture, class, and prosperity, 'Abd al-Rahman's Muslim Iberia was at least four centuries more advanced than Western Christendom in 800 CE. An ironic intelligence from another planet might have observed that if Carolingian Europeans believed that Charles the Hammer's victory at Poitiers made their world possible, then it was a fair question to ask whether or not defeat might have been preferable.

To this Derbyshire responds -

What can one say about this sort of thing? Is there any truth in it? Well, yes, there is some. It is often the case, in history's great churnings, that one nation strides ahead of another, only to fall back into decadence or barbarism a century or few later. And as Michael Hart notes in his recent book Understanding Human History: "Although at times the Moslem world was more advanced culturally than the Byzantines, it was never much more advanced." Notice Lewis's comparison, though: Western Christendom, Carolingean Europeans. His is a much narrower scope than a thorough comparison of Islam and Christendom would require.

Counterfactual speculations of the kind that Lewis is trading in are in any case airy and insubstantial because we lack the knowledge required to evaluate them.

The most telling thing about this type of history is the second and third sentence of the response. Is there any truth in it? Well, yes, there is some.

And that's the difference between the likes of Gibbon and the rest - the standards and approach to epistemology. For most modern historians of any ideological, ethnocuoltural or political stripe - narrative and perspective is the dominant factor in determining truth not the otherway around. That's why Derbyshire says "some" in relation to truth in Lewis' work. It's not enough for a fact to speak for itself, to establish a truth as one may not have the ability to know that truth, one has to create categories to interpret the fact to establish the truth.

On the other hand, for Derbyshire - Kennedy does a decent job of presenting a historical understanding of Islam in his work. In Kennedy's work facts are presented and the narrative arises from those facts. And so Derbyshire says, "His aim in The Great Arab Conquests is strictly narrative: to tell a curious nonspecialist what the Arabs did between the death of Mohammed in A.D. 632 and the fall of the Umayyads 118 years later. There are no counterfactual speculations here." In fact he asserts that Kennedy as a writer of History, "is at pains all through his book to emphasize the scarcity and unreliability of sources for the period. This was, after all, the Dark Ages. Kennedy tells us what is known. When he has to choose between conflicting accounts, or fill a void with speculation, he does so with utmost caution and many warnings..."

So what's the angle? I've recently acquired Philip Jenkin's latest book (Merry Christmas to me), The Lost History of Christianity. He recently did a promo (as opposed to pomo) in the Boston Globe that was quite a teaser, enough for me to buy it, also there's an interesting Q&A at BeliefNet.

The beauty and danger with Jenkins' writing is that he challenges assumptions, but generally does it with a healthy balance of fact and narrative. This doesn't mean that Mr. Jenkins is innocent of pomo tendencies in writing - he's just more of a Gibbon, than a Spencer or Lewis. He's not out to completely change and scrap the narrative framework that we operate in as much as expand it to be more inclusive without having to make extreme mental leaps. He is a passionate dispassionate historian.

All of this to say that I can't wait to read it.

[Full disclosure: I had the honour and pleasure of meeting Dr. Jenkins at a series of Lectures he gave at USC on Europe, Islam and Christianity. They can be read here and here.]

Sphere: Related Content

Jeffrey Sewell an inspired, yet ignorant, bigot?

We've cautioned Mr. Sewell on airing untoward comments on Twitter that belie his stature, but it appears that Mr. Sewell is desiring to continue his trek down the path of inappropriate, and now ignorant, comments.

Mr. Sewell recently tweeted:

SCHotline So the proposition that Muslims have special privileges in American society, to which others are not privy, is now enshrined in precedent.

The tweet happened three times which means either he's being emphatic or there's an issue with his computer/posting method.

His tweet bears an uncanny resemblance to a direct quote from Dhimmi Watch, meaning he probably lifted it from that site in regards to a recent settlement in a federal court case over religious liberty.

For background some Somali Muslims were fired from their jobs because they insisted on keeping the practice of their faith which requires that they pray three times a day.

And while Dhimmi Watch and Mr. Sewell take this as some sort of legal precedent... it's not, it's part of a settlement agreement, not a legal ruling from the bench as much as an assent to the current law.

The settlement is a good one, because no right has been carved out for Muslims, instead the company is being told to respect laws already in place that make religious folks (any religious folk) a protected class.

I'd assume, and though I don't like doing that, that Mr. Sewell is a low protestant. Some form of Evangelical. So while he's not familiar with ritualized/formalized prayer - I as a Catholic and Earl Capps as an Orthodox Christian - we are. In our tradition, it's urged - but not required, we are told to pray at least three times a day in a prayer called the Divine Office or Liturgy of the Hours. There used to be eight hours of prayer spread throughout the day. Some traditionalists still observe this practice, while the current discipline has four main hours (required of clergy and religious) three of which are popular amongst the lay.

But it doesn't take ritualized prayer aside only to be considered a protected class. Anecdotal evidence for you. I used to work at a factory. One man who was a fervent Christian kept a Bible at his desk. When he spoke you knew he was on fire for the Lord. He had a set pattern for prayer or time of reflection while he was at work. No one ever disturbed him during that time and he took it every day, at the same time, or there abouts if he was otherwise occupied with an important task at hand. The point is he took it, and management knew they couldn't tell him to take break with everyone else because this is what he did. Was it formal? No, most protestants don't have formalized prayer, but it was respected because he was a man of faith.

What's wrong with letting these people observe their faith when you're afforded the right to observe yours?

Sphere: Related Content

Challenge: Compare and Contrast

Anyone want to take on and compare/contrast the following two (3) statements?

From Pope Benedict:

"Today, nations once rich in faith and vocations are losing their own identity, under the harmful and destructive influence of a certain modern culture," said Benedict, who has been pushing for religion to be given more room in society. (Huff Po 10/5/08)

-and -

Benedict says that "now with the collapse of big banks we see that money disappears, is nothing and all these things that appear real are in fact of secondary importance." He urges those who build their lives "only on things that are visible, such as success, career, money" to keep that in mind. Benedict says "the only solid reality is the word of God." (Yahoo 10/06/08)

and from a member of Al-Qaida

"The enemies of Islam are facing a crushing defeat, which is beginning to manifest itself in the expanding crisis their economy is experiencing," said Gadahn, in a clip of the message distributed by the SITE Intelligence Group, a Washington-based monitor of militant Web sites.
"A crisis whose primary cause, in addition to the abortive and unsustainable crusades they are waging in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, is their turning their backs on Allah's revealed laws, which forbid interest-bearing transactions, exploitation, greed and injustice in all its forms." (Yahoo 10/06/08)

There's the obvious difference in tonality - one, Benedict's, is a stern warning made out of charity, the other, Gadahn's, is vitriolic and made out of hateful glee. The challenge is to get beyond the tonality and into the substance of both. Two phrases stuck out immediately to me, "turning their backs on Allah's (God's) revealed laws," and "the only solid reality is the Word of God."

I can't help but understand that they're drawing from the same anagogic well, if you'll allow the image, in their criticisms of the financial crisis however differently they express it.

Any other takers? No responses will be turned away.

Sphere: Related Content

Quote of the Day: Blessed Virgin Mary Vs. Our Lady of Wasilla

Leading Apostles and Prophets with titles such as "Generals of Intercession" go on spiritual warfare ventures with names like "Operation Ice Castle" - to attack the territorial demons which they believe prevent Muslims and Roman Catholics from embracing the true faith. In one such venture, one of the participants happily testified that she believed their efforts against the demon, "the Queen of Heaven", may have resulted in the death of Mother Theresa.

- Bruce Wilson, on Sarah Palin's Third Wave Theology

Emphasis added. If people can espouse that Barack Obama embraced the radical liberation theology of Rev. Wright, is it not also ok to believe that Sarah Palin embraces a similar extreme
theology from the right? Yes.

Sphere: Related Content

Pepsi Presents New Zanzibar

Unfortunately it's probably not as humourous as the Simpson's episode potrayed African Coups.

Saw it on CNN this morning and more details from an AP article, but a military coup has taken place in Mauritania ousting the sitting President and Prime Minister for firing four top military commanders. The millitary is claiming that the government was corrupt and was being to complacent with their dealings with Islamofascists.

I've actually got a friend who is a former Peace Corps volunteer working for a NGO in Mauritania. I've e-mailed her to find out her status, but communication has been far and few between especially on her blog. The AP article suggests that all US nationals are safe and accounted for which is a good thing.

Sphere: Related Content

Orthodox Patriarchate wins court battle

It appears that the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has one a court battle in Europe against the Turkish Government.

It's a property dispute case over an orphanage seized by the Turkish government which does not recognize the the Patriarchate as a legal entity. From Asia News:

With this verdict, the patriarchate not only can own property in Turkey, but its rights are now safeguarded by the court of Strasbourg, to which Turkey also belongs. The verdict is also a response to those in Turkey who continue to deny the historical and spiritual role of the see of Constantinople, which the international community has always acknowledged.

In addition to the specific case, the verdict is of the highest importance because it gives international recognition to the legal status of the ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople, always denied until now by the Turkish government. Religious minorities in Turkey are not recognised as legal personalities, and therefore cannot own property.

This is a huge step, not only for the Turkish nation to move forward to joining the European Union by forcing the state to recognize such rights, but it's a huge victory for the Orthodox Christians who for centuries have lost property to the state on religious grounds, maybe one day Christianity can finally reclaim this....

Sphere: Related Content

West risks obsession with Islam

The Times UK has an interesting article about a statement issued by the Vatican about the West's obsession with Islam, and about the need for a level playing field indeed in regards to all the world's religions when it comes to dialog and interaction.

...asked if there was a sense that Islam must not "monopolise" inter-faith dialogue Cardinal Tauran replied: "Yes, people are obsessed by Islam. For example I'm going to India next month and I want to give this message that all religions are equal. Sometimes there are priorities because of particular situations, but we mustn't get the impression there are first-class religions and second-class religions".

Cardinal Tauran said as much perhaps to down play the western notion that there's an impending clash of civilizations or to highlight the fact that Christianity is a persecuted religion the world round - not just in the Muslim Umma, signaling it to be a tragic mistake to proceed forward without that understanding.

This does not take away from the fact that the Pope is convening an international conference on Islam and Christianity this fall as a way to openly move forward on the "open letter," nor does it lessen the value and importance of demanding equanimity from the Muslim nations.

The cardinal criticised Saudi Arabia for not allowing Christian worship. “What is good for me is good for the other, so if it's possible for Muslims to have a mosque in the West, we should have the same in Muslim countries. This is not the case in many countries."

He said that last week he had celebrated mass at a new church in Doha, Qatar, consecrated a month ago. "It is a very impressive building. Now we're going to have a school there run by nuns. So this is an example of very good inter-religious dialogue with very concrete effects. In Saudi Arabia that is not the case yet."

Sphere: Related Content

Iran to Jesus

So what does the Son of Man have to do with this crazy man?

Well according to news reports President Ahmadinijad can not wait for the return of Jesus Christ to the world to usher in an era of peace.

It's more complex than that though, because even though for Islam there is a "Second Coming" of Jesus in the world and he will bring justice and peace, the notions of who Jesus is is completely different than in mainstream Christianity.

"With the appearance of the promised saviour... and his companions such as Jesus Christ, tyranny will be soon be eradicated in the world."

Also it should be noted that the Mahmoud is a Shi'ite and a "12ver" at that, which means his notions and beliefs - even about Jesus are nuanced if not completely different than Sunni Muslims and therefore heretical.

All in all though, Mahmoud's continued prognostications are cooky and vile, especially those towards Israel even though the "battle desired" and "end results" sound incredibly familiar to someone on our side of the world and who is constantly touted as a great American Pastor.

Sphere: Related Content

Jack Chick invades Iraq

From McClatchy Services:

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The U.S. military confirmed Thursday that a Marine in the Iraqi city of Fallujah was passing out coins with Gospel verses on them to Sunni Muslims, a U.S. military spokesman in Fallujah told McClatchy Thursday.
"It did happen," said Mike Isho, a spokesman for Multi National Forces West. "It's one guy and we're investigating."
The coins angered residents, who said they felt that American forces, whom they consider occupiers, were also acting as Christian missionaries in a predominately Muslim nation.
The Marine, whom Isho didn't identify, was passing out silver coins to residents with Arabic translations of New Testament verses on them. On one side the coin read, "Where will you spend eternity?" and on the other, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16."

This is probably the worst kind of PR for the Christian Faith as most Muslims already see this campaign as a modern Crusade, not to mention it follows on the scandal of a Serviceman using the Koran as target practice.

I'm sure the intentions of the soldier were good, but we're all aware of where those tend to lead. In this instance it's created a diplomatic nightmare and only increases misconceptions and mistrust about our presence.

It does speak to a broader under current within the millitary culture - a culture where a particular form of Evangelicalism has strained relations between soldiers of different faiths and even denominations from proselytizing efforts. I'm reminded of the huge mess at the Air Force Academy a couple of years ago that still simmers to this day. The military is right to take action in the event of impeding on one's freedom of conscious (as in the case of the Academy, where folks were isolated for their different beliefs), or in this instance potentially causing a diplomatic gaffe.

Sphere: Related Content

The Iranian Issue

The Jerusalem Post has two (three) very interesting articles today on Iran.

In one it reiterates a long time American (Israeli) security concern that a Nuclear Iran would simply spur development of a Nuclear Middle East - proof seen in 13 Islamic Nations drafting nuclear programs in the wake of Irans declerations of intent, from secular Turkey who would be least likely to develop a weapons arsenal, to the Wahhabist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia who views the Shia of Iran as heretics and foes.

In the other article, it is reported that the Bush Administration plans to attack Iran by the end of his term (January 19th, 2009). Sources said:

The official claimed that a senior member of the president's entourage, which concluded a trip to Israel last week, said during a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action was called for.

However, the official continued, "the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic, for the time being.

This of course is in contrast to the recomendations of another key partner in the region, Russia, who believes it is as much a 'nightmare' to have a nuclear Iran, is urging restraint and a more nuanced approach. The Russian Ambassador to Israel is quoted as saying a more prudent approach would be that which the west used against Ghadaffi after the Lockerbie bombings,

The best advice, he said, was to "get Gaddafi's name off the front pages, leave him alone with his domestic problem, because he won't
be able to stand them."

"Regimes like that, Gaddafi and [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, use outside threat as inner consolidation of the society. I am convinced of that," he said.

Rather than pushing Iran into a corner, Russia's position, Stegniy said, was designed to keep Iran at the negotiating table, and to keep the Intentional Atomic Energy Agency inside Iran. ...

"We will do our utmost to keep Ahmadinejad from having a nuclear weapon. It is the consensus aim. We may differ on the means, but we are united on strategy."

That position, it should be noted - concerning saber rattling for the sake of guising against Domestic distress is similar to what Barack Obama suggested this past Sunday: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, `We're going to wipe you off the planet."'

The question now is: will George Bush and his administration, with the country distracted by domestic problems such as the economy and skyrocketing fuel costs, use the authority granted by Congress in declaring the Iranian Quds a terror organization (thank you Hillary and John McCain), to extend the war from Iraq to Iran - furthering this cowboy diplomacy of going in guns blazing leaving yourself no ammunition to defend yourself from all of this missed shots you fired that has failed over the past seven years.

The irony being of course that one could argue that the actions President Bush and his war cronies are suggesting is the same saber rattling and distractions from Domestic ills that Mahmoud is using in Iran.

I don't have the ear of the President, who believes he has the ear of God vis-a-vis his warmongering council of Neo-Cons, but if I did, I'd urge - like our Russian partners - restraint. And against his predilictions for cowboy diplomacy, would recommend that he assert the Krauthammer Holocaust Decleration, which is and of itself a face of Neo-Con ideology if only a softer facet:

"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel [or other Middle Eastern Ally] by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran. ..."

while pursuing the more cautious diplomacy as advocated by Defense Secretary Gates and Secretary of State Rice, and leave it to the next administration, an administration that will be done with this cowboy mentality.

Sphere: Related Content

A second Obama Apostate Article appears

H/T to Gashwin for forwarding me this article.

It appears that a second attempt to manipulate Islamophobia in the Presidential Race has appeared. Shireen K. Burki is an adjunct professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington, in Fredericksburg, Va and who has extensive ties with the Marine Corps as a consultant is the author of the latest bit.

It's found in the Christian Science Monitor, and much like Edward Luttwak's piece from the NYTimes, attempts to connect Obamas seeming cultural-hereditary ties witht he Umma with reasons why he'll be the target State Sponsored Assassination attempts in the worst case scenarios and an impediment to foreign relations with the Middle East and the entirety of Dar al Islam in all other cases. But Ms. Burki takes her argument a step further. She insists that terrorist organizations (Al Qaeda) will also see President Obama as a worthy target as an Apostate to the religion and as leader of the Great Satan - especially if he takes a "hard line" in regards to the Middle East (further warmongering).

Ms. Burki argues:

According to Islamic jurisprudence, children of a Muslim father – even an apparently nonpracticing one, such as Obama's father, and irrespective of the mother's faith – are automatically Muslims. Most Muslims around the world agree: A child of a Muslim father is a Muslim. Period. Should Obama become US commander in chief, there is a strong likelihood that Al Qaeda's media arm, As-Sahab, will exploit his background to argue that an apostate is leading the global war on terror (read: attacks against fellow Muslims). This perception would be leveraged to galvanize sympathizers into action.

But why would everyday Muslims galvanize around this call - well her response is very similar to Bittergate.

"Al Qaeda, though, has struggled recently to recruit volunteers for this jihad. While bin Laden retains significant support as someone willing to stand up for Muslim concerns, most Muslims abhor Al Qaeda's terrorist methods whose primary targets are innocent noncombatants.

But an apostate as head of the United States could change this equation. It would be a propaganda boost for Al Qaeda's mission. All one has to do is read Al Qaeda's public statements to recognize how frequently it makes baseless apostasy accusations against fellow Muslims who challenge its message or actions. ...

Conservative Muslim populations that are riddled with poverty and low literacy rates can be more readily swayed to join the cause against the "Great Satan" (the US) if their imams and mullahs shout that it is led by an apostate."

So Mr. Obama should he be President and who according to John McCain is Hezzbolah's candidate (Shia Islam) is now the favoured Candidate of Al-Qaeda (Sunni Islam) an organization that is theologically as well as politically opposed to Hezzbolah, Iran, and Shia Islam (heresy!) in general.

To respond to these charges by two well respected individuals who draw paychecks from Conservative (Republican and NeoCon) institutions and the (rather Hawkish) War Department, I refer my dear friends to an article in Huffington Post by Ali Eteraz. He has many strong arguments the basis of which goes back to the notion of simply being born to a Muslim Man = a Muslim is a fallacy:

Religion is not hereditary as it is in Judaism. Islam is not a race. Just because a child has a Muslim father -- which, again, Obama didn't -- doesn't mean anything unless the child is being raised as a Muslim. At the time of birth, Muslims engage in a symbolic act -- of saying the Call to Prayer in the child's ear -- that renders a child Muslim. If Obama's father was agnostic/atheist, then he wouldn't have done such a thing.
No call to prayer in the ear, not raised as a Muslim, born to an atheist father, and then abandoned to a Christian mother both by father and his family, equals not Muslim. Obama is right to say he had no religion until he became a Christian.
Those who actually study Muslims see that there are millions of inter-religious marriages -- between Muslim men and Hindu women for example -- in which the children are being raised as pantheists, or even, Hindu. When these children grow up, they aren't killed for being apostates (though some Muslims do thumb their noses at the father for "allowing" his children to be raised non-Muslim).

In a way it's fortunate to see that such a whisper campaign, no matter how contrived and nonsensical, being brought to the surface so that writers such as Mr. Eteraz and other more serious scholars without potential biases (such as who's paying them) may step forward and rectify these ludicrous accusations.

Sphere: Related Content

Patriarch responds to "Open Letter"

As Gashwin has pointed out, his Beatitude Patriarch Alexei II, leader of the Russian Orthodox has responded to the Open Letter - A Common Word - to Christian Leaders Worldwide. This on the heels of reports from a lesser Prelate of that Communion calling for an alliance with Rome to respond to Christianity's detractors. It's all very intriguing. I guess we'll just have to wait until November to find out where all this is going.

Sphere: Related Content

Muslim Cleric says Rome shall soon fall

Can't believe I missed this the first time around on Fox News at the beginning of the week. But I just read it on CNS.

"Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our Prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital, which has declared its hostility to Islam, and has planted the brothers of apes and pigs in Palestine in order to prevent the reawakening of Islam – this capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe."

I had found at one point in time a hand drawing from an fanatical site of what St Peter's Basilica would look like as a mosque - it's jarring to say the least about having such an idea planted in your head. Could it really happen? Well the Europeans in 1400 didn't believe that Constantinople would fall to the invading Turks and looked to capitalize off the Turks advances to the further detriment of New Rome. Thus today the Hagia Sophia is a former Grand-Church-Turned-Mosque-Turned Museum. On the other side of the coin though, think about moorish spain. Even today people attend services at the Mezquita in Cordoba Spain. The Mezquita was once a grand Mosque and when the Christians reconquered the region they converted it to a grand Cathedral.

The theme of conquest in Islam has been a part of the Muslim mindset since shortly after the conception of the faith. How else would this theme transmit from generation to generation from people to people if it weren't a built in component.

Pope Benedict suffered ire from Muslims world wide feeling insulted by his quotation of a Byzantine Emperor Manuel II:

"...he [Manuel] addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..."

But the point is valid and none the less true. After studying Islam (only scantly I'll admit) I'm more of a Spencerian and very cautious when it comes to the precepts of Islam. But the central question still remains... will the Muslims convert Rome to Rum? It's possible, but at this point in time not probable.

Sphere: Related Content

Ex PM Blair: 'Why we don't do God'

I'm a huge fan of Ruth Gledhill, she's such a great religion reporter for the Times, and I suppose it's something unique about the British National Mindset that comes thru her writing all the time that makes it to our gruff American English always seem rather pithy. Today her post is no different.

Her post is on former British PM Tony Blair and the speech he gave at Westminster Cathedral as a part of the innauguration of his Faith Foundation. According to Mr. Blair's website "The purpose of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation is to promote respect, friendship and understanding between the major religious faiths; and to make the case for faith itself as relevant, positive and a force for good in the modern world."

The Secularization of Inter-religious Dialogue

As Ms. Gledhill pointed out one of the most provocative aspects of Mr. Blair's speech was to address a statement by his former Press Secretary, Alastair Campbell - who once famously said: ‘We don’t do God’.

He says:

In our culture, here in Britain and in many other parts of Europe, to admit to having faith leads to a whole series of suppositions, none of which are very helpful to the practising politician. First, you may be considered weird. Normal people aren’t supposed to ‘do God’.

Second, there is an assumption that before you take a decision, you engage in some slightly cultish interaction with your religion – ‘So, God, tell me what you think of City Academies or Health Service Reform or nuclear power’ i.e. people assume that your religion makes you act, as a leader, at the promptings of an inscrutable deity, free from reason rather than in accordance with it.

Third, you want to impose your religious faith on others.

Fourth, you are pretending to be better than the next person.

And finally and worst of all, that you are somehow messianically trying to co-opt God to bestow a divine legitimacy on your politics.

So when Alastair said it, he didn’t mean politicians shouldn’t have faith; just that it was always a packet of trouble to talk about it.

And underlying it all, certainly, is the notion that religion is divisive, irrational and harmful.'

Where as Ms. Gledhill seems to find confusion IMHO it's a brilliant introduction to the aforementioned theme of secularizing inter-religious dialogue.

That last line is key and is the mindset of his humanist audience, the religious illiterates who composite Europe's glitteratti of Democrats and Intellectuals, who are as yet still boggled over the fact that "at no time since the Enlightenment has religion ever gone away." He argues, It has always been at the very core of life for millions of people, the foundation of their existence, the motive for their behaviour, the thing which gives sense to their lives and purpose to their journeys – which makes life more than just a sparrow’s flight through a lighted hall from one darkness to another, in that memorable image of the Venerable Bede."

But, "Faith is problematic when it becomes a way of denigrating those who do not share it, as somehow lesser human beings. Faith as a means of exclusion. God in this connection becomes not universal but partisan, faith not a means of reaching out in friendship but a means of creating or defining enemies."

So the answer for the secularists is to get over the fact that religion isn't dead, join in the market place of religion and realize that secularism or humanism, whatever your epithet, doesn't exclude you from that realm of 'problematic' it implicates your ideology as well to be a means of exclusion if one is unable to at least listen. At the very least for those who can't swallow that particular pill:

Now, you may say, this is all very well. If you are of religious faith, all this may be of interest to you. But if not: Why should I care? So, there are these competing strands of vision about faith in the modern world. So what? Why does it matter in the world beyond the faith communities? The answer is this.

Accept the premise that faith is not in decline. It isn’t disappearing inevitably under the weight of scientific and technological progress. It is still here with us, not just surviving but thriving.

After all, In an era of globalisation, of political interdependence, where the world is ever more swiftly opening up and the cliché about a global community becomes an economic, political and often social reality; in this new world, how religious faith develops will have a profound impact. And what does that mean to Mr. Blair, what does that swiftly opening up, that ever shifting of people and information mean?

Today, precisely because all the fixed points of reference seem unfixed and constantly in flux; today is more than ever, when we need to discover and re-discover our essential humility before God, our dignity as found in our lives being placed at the service of the Source and Goal of everything. I can’t prove that religious faith offers something more than humanism. But I believe profoundly that it does. And since religious faith has such a strong historical and cultural influence on both East and West, it can help unify around common values what otherwise might be a battle for domination.

So that's the point Mr. Blair ultimately would like to make, that by understanding the not only the historical context of religious experiences of people but understand that the fact that they are historical and despite the progresses that man has made that religion isn't dead that religion is a source for constancy in our world.

The Foundation will expressly not be about chucking faith into a doctrinal melting pot. It is not about losing our own distinctive faith. It is about learning about, living and working with others of a different faith. But it will also be concerned with promoting the idea of faith itself as something dynamic, modern and full of present relevance.
For religion to be a positive force for good, it must be rescued not simply from extremism – faith as a means of exclusion; but also from irrelevance - an interesting part of our history but not of our future.

Sphere: Related Content

Hacking, or Cyber-Terrorism?

In the past few weeks folks in the MSM have shown renewed interest in what we're doing as a country (and bloc) to prevent cyber-terrorism. Many are calling for a more stringent approach to a very real threat that is more possible and imminent than a missile attack.

Some of our allies are moving ahead to update their standards and systems in preparation for the proven reality of cyber-spying and terrorism. It was only, after all, last summer that the Chinese Government was successful in hacking into the Pentagon's e-mail system. More recently the German Government has been able to trace cyber-attacks to Beijing.

But what about jihaddists?

AmP has posted that the hacking of a Catholic website with the usage of Islamic paraphernalia, including replacing images of cardinals with that of asses and making statements transliterated into English about the 'illustrious' (crude translation) order. Thomas ends his post by positing this:

The Knights of the Holy Sepulchre should not only notify their ISP, they should notify the U.S. government.

But is this really cyber-terrorism? Or is it just hacking. After all, I'm doubtful the Knights use sophisticated programming to either 1) design their page or 2) control security. Granted the imagery and wording used is indicative of some islamo-centered anti-Catholicism (and anti-Americanism) but is this the "first shot" to be heard round the war in the great battle of cyberspace?

Probably not...

But it makes for great aggrandizement and fear mongering, much as he would testify that Global Warming 'yahoos' are foolish for immediately rushing to their conclusions about Climate Change.

The reality is that unless you're equating all "hacking" where there's damage to someone's site as cyberterrorism - which implies a gravity not necessary for punk kids showing off their disdain for a group or just showing off (even kids in say - oh Egypt), then this isolated event can't be called terrorism - but plain old hacking.

As for real cyberterrorism Shashdot has an interesting interview with the Air Force's Cyber Czar which discusses certain aspects of what the American Government is doing to prevent/neutralize these threats (interesting albeit brief and cursory for security purposes).

Sphere: Related Content

Our Lady of the Rosary - Qatar

Lots of interesting news stories about the opening of Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Doha Qatar. It's the first church in the gulf state after 50 years of repression of open Christian Worship. Check them out:

The State

Yahoo News!

Associated Press

The Gulf Times have an interesting article on the history of Arabian Christianity and note the connection to Nestorianism. It's an interesting read. Also Check out Wikipedia's article on Arabic - Christianity.

Sphere: Related Content