This week in superstition

A teenaged Muslim girl was stoned to death about a week ago.  She had participated in a beauty contest. 

An Egyptian general recently admitted that female anti-Mubarak protesters "had to submit to virginity tests."

An Iranian cleric has examined the Koran and determined that killing Israeli children is ok. 

The Reverend Doctor Albert Mohler of Southern (Baptist) Seminary in Louisville KY  has condemned the Presbyterians for ordaining gays and lesbians. 

The picture of the cat who happened to be born black came from here. 

Osama Bin Laden has gone on to collect his reward

Yep.  They got the s.o.b. sometime last night, and he now sleeps with the fishes. 
He is now about to lift the veils and burkhas of his first couple of virgins (with 70 more to go). 

The picture of Gretrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas came from www.FamousLiteraryLesbians.com.

Are pilgrimages to Mecca a civil right?

Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, was 2010's Person Of The Year for this website. 
He achieved this by outlawing the Kindle ebook readers as a substitute for college textbooks.  (They discriminate against the blind.  Swear to God, that's the argument he used.)  

Well, Perez is back in action, going for back-to-back trophies. 

A middle-school math teacher who happens to be a Muslim asked for three weeks off work so she could make a pilgrimage to Mecca. 
As she had only worked for the district for nine months, and the time off would've disrupted the end of semester exam schedule.  The teacher, Safoorah Khan, was the school's only math teacher. 

Khan said to hell with it, I'm going to Mecca. 

Ok, a brief digression here....Is there any other group you would've suspected of this type behavior other than government employees?  Just wondering....

Justice Department lawyers examined the same set of facts and reached a different conclusion: that the school district’s decision amounted to outright discrimination against Khan. They filed an unusual lawsuit, accusing the district of violating her civil rights by forcing her to choose between her job and her faith.

Now I have to confess something.  I, too, have made people choose between their jobs and their superstitions.  For about a year and a half, I ran a chain of bookstore/coffee bars at D/FW airport.  One of them was a total mess.  I went in one morning and the line of customers was out the freakin' door.  There was only one employee working the register, making the cappuccinos, and ringing up books.  Customers were pissed. 
I asked the employee where (I'm making up names here) Raffi and Muhammad were.  She said they were in the back room.  I helped her work the line of customers down to a manageable level, and then stomped into the back room. 
Raffi and Muhammad were kneeling on rugs in the back room with their noses pointed toward Mecca and their asses pointed toward Lubbock, Texas. 
"WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU ****ING IDIOTS DOING?"  I said politely.  "We've had customers out the door." 
Raffi and Muhammad explained that it was prayer time.  I explained that they could talk to Allah during their lunch break.  They disagreed.  I explained that I was purchasing their time and effort, and that other people were willing to sell me their time and effort, people who might not need to shut down work to commune with The Prophet. 
I made them choose between their faith and their jobs. 
Was I wrong? 
Should I have made accomodations for them?  Brought other employees into the airport for 20-minute shifts to accomodate Raffi and Muhammad's spiritual requirements? 

Anyway, Thomas Perez has not yet made his entrance into this story.  Sorry for the digression.  Here he comes....

“It sounds like a very dubious judgment and a real legal reach,” said Michael B. Mukasey, who was attorney general in the George W. Bush administration. “The upper reaches of the Justice Department should be calling people to account for this.”


His successors in the Obama administration counter that they are upholding a sacred principle: the right of every American to be free of religious bias in the workplace. “This was a profoundly personal request by a person of faith,” said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, who compared the case to protecting “the religious liberty that our forefathers came to this country for.”

You gotta love him. 
I believe that one of the other liberties that our forefathers came here for was the liberty to employ people who can work through a rush hour without stopping to plant their foreheads on D/FW Airport concrete for 20 minutes.  But I'm a minority opinion more and more these days. 

Perez denied any political motive in the Berkeley lawsuit, saying it was pursued in part to fight “a real head wind of intolerance against Muslim communities.” People in the rapidly growing Muslim community in Chicago’s western suburbs praised the Justice Department’s involvement.

He's lying.  See the next paragraph in the article. 

“It rings the bell of justice that they will fight for a Muslim wanting to perform a religious act,” said Shaykh Abdool Rahman Khan, resident scholar at the Islamic Foundation mosque near Berkeley. “That certainly can win the hearts of many people in the Muslim world.”

I didn't think that was what our justice department should be up to, but there you have it. 

Although the Justice Department, including during the Bush administration, and private plaintiffs have filed civil rights lawsuits on religious grounds, they have tended to be over issues such as whether employees can take off on the Sabbath or wear religious head coverings.

Cases involving the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, or hajj, are exceedingly rare, said Christina Abraham, civil rights director for the Chicago office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Sorry for the lack of top-quality posts for the last two weeks.  We're trying to open a new warehouse, and are violating the Muslim, Jewish, and Christian sabbaths while doing so.  Don't bother asking for a job unless you are willing to occasionally work on all of them. 

Coexist

An Afghan physiotherapist will be executed within three days for converting to Christianity.


Said Musa, 45, has been held for eight months in a Kabul prison were he claims he has been tortured and sexually abused by inmates and guards.

Mr Musa, who lost his left leg in a landmine explosion in the 1990s, has worked for the Red Cross for 15 years and helps to treat fellow amputees.

He was arrested in May last year as he attempted to seek asylum at the German embassy following a crackdown on Christians within Afghanistan.


He claims he was visited by a judge who told him he would be hanged within days unless he converted back to Islam.

But he remains defiant and said he would be willing to die for his faith.

He told the Sunday Times: 'My body is theirs to do what they want with.

'Only God can decide if my spirit goes to hell.'

Defence lawyers have refused to represent him, while others have dropped the case after receiving death threats.

Mr Musa was arrested after a TV station showed western men baptising Afghans during secret ceremonies.


So many gods, so many creeds,
So many paths that wind and wind,
While just the art of being kind
Is all the sad world needs.



— Ella Wheeler Wilcox

What Am I ??

Picture compliments of The Whited Mama.

Ten things more dangerous than The Ground Zero Mosque

Here's a quick listing of all the things I can quickly think of that are more dangerous than a mosque a couple of blocks from the World Trade Center site.  IMHO, all of these are a much greater threat to your physical and economic well-being than the Ground Zero Wedge Issue.   

1.  Your Friendly Neighborhood Swat Team - They're starting to show up at the wrong houses, based on bad info, for ridiculous reasons.  Then if you're lucky the worst thing they do is shoot your dogs. 

2.  Democrats - Their Senators and Representatives want to get between you and your doctor with ObamaCare.  They want more of your money to give to their constituents. 

3.  Republicans - Their Senators and Representatives have no intention of repealing ObamaCare, otherwise we would have seen a "Contract With America" campaign based on doing so.  They want more of your money to give to their constituents. 

4.  Saudi Arabia - To name just one.  Almost all of the 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia.  After 9-11, we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. 

5.  American military bases - They're costing us a fortune, advocates claim that they're for defensive purposes on American soil, and yet if a disgruntled Major wants to go on a shooting spree in the middle of one of them, nobody can find a gun to use in self-defense.  That's a great use of your money, isn't it?  Plus we have soldiers in 135 other countries.  How would you feel about a Mexican military base in the middle of Dallas?  Would it irritate you?  Would it make you want to take up arms against the Mexican invader?   

6.  The Federal Reserve - The Dems and Republicans are on a spending spree like none other the world has ever seen.  How are we going to pay for it?  We're going to print our way out of debt.  Your dollars are about to be worth a quarter.  Unfortunately, this is hard to understand and is boring.  Muslims in Manhattan are easy to see, and they typically dress differently.  Great target for politicians who need a distraction.     

7.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - They're still getting people into houses that they can't afford, with almost no down payment required.  But it's ok if they default.  Fannie and Freddie are there to step in and make it all ok between the borrower and the bank.  (Using your money, of course.)

8.  Our insane drug prohibition laws - The Texas/Mexico border is a very dangerous place because Mexican drug cartels are fighting each other for control of the drug corridor.  Our border with Canada, however, is perfectly safe.  But back during the era of alcohol prohibition, the U.S./Canada border was a very dangerous place because bootleggers were fighting each other for control of the moonshine corridor.  Prohibition equals violence. 

9.  The other million or so Mosques, meeting rooms, houses and apartments within 20 miles of Ground Zero - There are already 9 Mosques in Manhattan, and I can promise you that the CIA and FBI have them infested with more bugs than the Iraqi embassy.  If the bad guys are going to meet someplace to plot another attack on the U.S., it ain't going to be at the Ground Zero Mosque. 

10.  People who don't understand Liberty - Free Speech, Gun Rights, Freedom Of Assembly, and Property Rights aren't things that we vote on.  They are things that we protect.  We shouldn't even have to think about it.  If our Muslim friends want to show up on their property (a couple of blocks from the World Trade Center site) so they can study the writings and ravings of an illiterate pedophile, they should be allowed to do so.   

On the Ground Zero Mosque

A few things to consider about the Ground Zero Mosque....

1) Do the people who want to build the mosque own the land in question?  Or is the landlord willing to let them open a mosque in the existing building? 

2) Will the mosque put anyone in danger? 

3)  Do we want grandstanding politicians involved in decisions about how we can and cannot use private property? 

4)  If you owned a piece of land, would you want its usage to be put up for a vote? 

5)  It is illegal to open a synagogue in many Muslim countries.  Ditto for a church.  Would putting a U.S. ban on mosques help or hurt this situation? 

6)  When you were a kid, did you ever learn the rhyme "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?  Does this apply to buildings? 

7)  Has the Islamic Witch Doctor in charge of this stunt already gotten far more free publicity than he deserves? 

8)  Is this a GREAT wedge issue for Republicans who want Americans to worry about tribalism instead of our $14,000,000,000,000.00 debt? 

9)  Which building is more likely to do you harm:  The Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas, or a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero? 

10)  Does Barack Obama's willingness to get sucked into this issue prove that he is a silly person? 

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day !

Welcome to the first annual "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" event. 
Ever since the murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who dared to make a movie critical of Islam, ever since the death threats against Mohammed-drawing Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, which have led to his forced retirement, and ever since the censoring of Muhammad-drawing Matt Stone and Trey Parker (of South Park fame) by the craven execs at Comedy Central, well, something had to be done. 


Somebody came up with the idea of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.   Hit the link. 


The idea behind it?  Solidarity.  Plus, if everybody draws Mohammed, they probably won't kill us all. 

Well, the only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. 

Here's my pic.  It's a fairly reverent depiction of Mohammed's trip to Jerusalem, the trip he made on the back of a flying horse that had the face of an angel. 

Here's Reason magazine:

Attacking iconoclasts (meant here in its literal meaning) has been a constant throughout human history. It's one of the great dividing lines, like laughter and face-to-face copulation, that separates man from beast. Indeed, I'm betting it was a fundamental element of even pre-human history. Can we doubt seriously that some gang of Neanderthals didn't crush the skulls of others who decorated cave walls in "offensive" ways? In the 20th and 21st centuries alone, all sorts of human expression have led to brutality and murder. The ground of Europe and Asia and all the continents with the (possible) exception of Antarctica is fertilized with the blood and bones of martyrs who have done nothing more than make tangible their thoughts in words, music, and pictures. Yet even in a country like ours that threatens consenting adults for making dirty movies with effective life sentences, or in European countries where speech codes imprison malefactors for "hate speech," there is a massive gulf between "mere" censorship and death threats, between the answering of "bad" speech not with more speech but with the blade, the bullet, or the bomb.

This amateurish image was created by Islamic imams and depicts Mohammed as a pedophile. They have defiled their own tradition. There comes a point in any society's existence where it must ultimately, to paraphrase Martin Luther (who himself was more than happy to see opponents put to death), dig in its heels and say here we stand, we will do no other. We don't need to be perfectly consistent philosophically or historically or theologically to assert what is special and unique not just about the United States, with its bizarre and wonderful articulation of the First Amendment, but the greater classical liberal project comprising not just the "West" (whatever that is) but human beings in whatever town, country, or planet they inhabit. And at the heart of the liberal project is ultimately a recognition that individuals, for no other reason than that they exist, have rights to continue to exist. Embedded in all that is the right to expression. No one has a right to an audience or even to a sympathetic hearing, much less an engaged audience. But no one should be beaten or killed or imprisoned simply for speaking their mind or praying to one god as opposed to the other or none at all or getting on with the small business of living their life in peaceful fashion. If we cannot or will not defend that principle with a full throat, then we deserve to choke on whatever jihadists of all stripes can force down our throats.

This is not about U.S. foreign policy, or trade policy, or aid to Israel or Egypt, or the creation of a Palestinian homeland. This is about the right to have the conversations that might inform all that and more. We live in a time of paradox: Never before have so many been so empowered to speak their own minds, to produce and consume whatever form of expression when they want, where they want. The impact on those seeking to regulate and control thought is as predictable as it is depressing and, ultimately, ineffective: Whether they are governments or corporations or religious or ideological groups, they want to stamp out the ability of people to say and think for themselves.

Our Draw Mohammed contest is not a frivolous exercise of hip, ironic, hoolarious sacrilege toward a minority religion in the United States (though even that deserves all the protection that the most serioso political commentary commands). It's a defense of what is at the core of a society that is painfully incompetent at delivering on its promise of freedom, tolerance, and equal rights. It's a rebuttal to the notion that we should go limp in the clinches precisely because bullies and bastards can punch or blow us up.

Well said.  Hope you like the picture. 

Vanderbilt Chaplain - "go with what Islam teaches" on capital punishment for homosexuals

From The City Paper, in Nashville:


Vanderbilt University Issues Statement On Muslim Speaker's Remark:


By E. Thomas Wood

Vanderbilt University last night moved to distance itself from the controversy over a statement made by its Muslim chaplain last week at a campus event.
At a forum entitled "Common Ground: Being Muslim in the Military" on Jan. 25, Chaplain Awadh A. Binhazim responded to a question from student Devin Saucier, vice president of the V.U. chapter of conservative group Youth for Western Civilization, by saying he would have to "go with what Islam teaches" regarding the imposition of capital punishment on practicing homosexuals.


For those of you who are fans of Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals", Mr. Saucier employed Rules # 4, 5, and 6.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.


Several Islamic countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, are known to have put people to death for homosexual activity.


After accounts of the event and YouTube footage of Binhazim's comment led to widespread criticism on both conservative and gay-oriented blogs, the university put out a statement Monday evening noting that the event was part of its "Project Dialogue," a series meant to bring "diverse viewpoints" to campus.

Well, if diversity was the goal, they met it.


"No view expressed at a Project Dialogue or similar campus forum should be construed as being endorsed by Vanderbilt," the statement said. "The university is dedicated to the free exchange of ideas. It is the belief of the university community that free discussion of ideas can lead to resolution and reconciliation."
The statement went on to reaffirm V.U.'s commitment both to free speech and to non-discrimination.


In the words of Glenn Reynolds, "Luckily, he (Binzahim) was Muslim, not Baptist, so it won’t be a big national scandal."
Seriously. This statement was made on January 25th. The Nashville paper published this account of the frenzied back-pedaling on February 1st. At times like this, I wish Keith Olbermann had been there.


"There has been some confusion as to Binhazim's role at Vanderbilt," the statement concluded. "He is the Muslim chaplain at Vanderbilt, a volunteer position. He is not a professor of Islam and is not associated with Vanderbilt University Divinity School. He has adjunct associate professor status at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in pathology. This position, which carries no teaching or research responsibilities, is also unpaid."


It sounds like they just let him hang out at Vanderbilt, doesn't it?


Binhazim is employed as a professor of pathology at Meharry Medical College.


A busy man, Mr. Binhazim.
Back to Glenn Reynold's point about the harsh and savage criticism (justly) leveled against Baptists, vs. the free pass given to Muslims on this issue..... If a political, military, or celebrity spokesperson of the fundamentalist Protestant persuasion held these beliefs, he would be unable to speak in public on any issue without having to take questions about his belief that gays and lesbians should be executed.
And yet with the Muslim faith, we agree to accept it as part of their culture. Why do our newspaper and TV journalists give them a free pass on this?

Picture of the execution of two gay Iranian teenagers came from here.

Danish Cartoons, Irish Blasphemy Laws, Christ In Urine, and Obama As A Lawn Jockey

Last Friday night, a 28-year old Somali man armed with a knife and an axe entered the home of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.
Because of having drawn this particular cartoon....

.....and death threats against the artist, Westergaard's home was equipped with a safe room, or "panic room", for those who've seen the Jodie Foster movie.

From the D.C. Examiner: Westergaard was at home with his visiting 5-year-old granddaughter when he heard the suspect trying to break in. "I locked myself in our safe room and alerted the police.”

Unable to smash the front door with his ax, the suspect was shot once in the knee and once in the hand by police. The wounds are not life-threatening.

What's to be done about this situation, where Muslims those adhering to certain belief system want to destroy airliners, cartoonists, themselves, and others?

Ireland has responded by tightening up their Blasphemy laws. These regulations went into effect on January 1st. Here's The Guardian:

The new law, which was passed in July, means that blasphemy in Ireland is now a crime punishable with a fine of up to €25,000 (£22,000).

It defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted".

The justice minister, Dermot Ahern, said that the law was necessary because while immigration had brought a growing diversity of religious faiths, the 1936 constitution extended the protection of belief only to Christians.

In other words, the current version of the Irish Blasphemy statues are no less silly, but a lot more fair. If you want to watch the virus spread, and if you have a strong stomach, you can go here for a USA Today editorial about the U.N. and the Obama Administration supporting an International Law Against Blasphemy.

A group of Irish Freethinkers instantly responded by posting a list of quotations from Jesus, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer (hello Shuey !), Randy Newman, Salman Rushdie, George Carlin, Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict, and a few Irish politicians. Any of these quotations would be fair game for anyone wanting to earn some money or notoriety through a blasphemy complaint. Organized sensitivity is becoming more and more profitable.

Speaking of Blasphemy, let's change gears and continents for a moment. This is Andres Serrano's masterpiece, "Piss Christ". It's a photograph of a crucifix submerged in Serrano's urine. It was a big deal back in the late 1980's.

I can take it or leave it. If Andres Serrano wants photograph The Last Supper in purple pelican poop, it doesn't harm me in the least. It wouldn't harm you, either, unless you were forced to pay for it. (In the case of Piss Christ, you may have paid for it, but that's another story. Go here for more than you'll ever want to know about the incident.)

Speaking of Transgressive Art.... Here's a work that I might commission, if I ever get the proper Photoshop skills.

I want to do a multimedia installation showing Barack Obama dressed as a lawn jockey, parking cars at a Goldman Sachs Christmas party. It would be controversial, but it would illustrate the power relationship between Goldman Sachs and our government, and depict the level at which Obama truly is their little bitch.

I want to photograph a sterotypical Welfare Queen in her Cadillac, the stereotype so often derided during the Reagan era. I want to paste (juxtapose, in artspeak) the face of the Archer Daniels Midland CEO onto the body of the Welfare Queen, and call the piece "Welfare Brood Sow", and challenge preconceptions of government dependency.

The final work will be something called "U O Me", and I intend to hire a troupe of performance artists to infest the maternity ward of Arlington Memorial Hospital. The artists will give each infant a bill for $375,000.00, representing each child's share of the unfunded government liabilities voted into place by their grandparents. The artists will threaten to withold milk until all debts are paid.

If you're wanting to help fund any of these projects, don't bother. I'm going to apply for an NEA grant.

Let's review the topics covered so far:

1) Danish cartoons portraying Muhammed.
2) Quotes from Jesus, Twain, and Pope Benedict.
3) Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ".
4) Some proposed artwork of my own, designed to illustrate the corrupt nature of our government.

A few questions on each:

1) Have any of these caused you, or anyone else, physical harm?
2) Would you censor, or prosecute the producers of any of these forms of speech?
3) All of them, or just some of them? Why?
4) Do you think any of these are actually beneficial to society and represent a valid point of view?
5) And finally, do you think it's possible for a government to prohibit one category without endangering all the others?

Just wondering.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. (Especially if you're a god.)

On religious hangings, bannings, and boycotts

From The Associated Press, on Switzerland's recent ban on any new minarets:

GENEVA — The United Nations called Switzerland's ban on new minarets "clearly discriminatory" and deeply divisive, and the Swiss foreign minister acknowledged Tuesday the government was very concerned about how the vote would affect the country's image.

U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay said Sunday's referendum to outlaw the construction of minarets in Switzerland was the product of "anti-foreigner scare-mongering."

The criticism from Pillay, whose office is based in the Swiss city of Geneva, comes after an outcry from Muslim countries, Switzerland's European neighbors and human rights watchdogs since 57.5 percent of the Swiss population ratified the ban.

The Swiss government opposed the initiative but has sought to defend it as an action not against Islam or Muslims, but one aimed at improving integration and fighting extremism.

"These are extraordinary claims when the symbol of one religion is targeted," Pillay said in a statement. She said she was saddened to see xenophobic arguments gain such traction with Swiss voters despite their "long-standing support of fundamental human rights."

The referendum doesn't affect Switzerland's four existing minarets, or the ability of Muslims to practice their religion. It only bans the towers used to put out the Islamic call to prayer.

Let's change gears. This is from learned Islamic scholar Zakir Naik, probably the most popular Islamic theologian on our planet, on why it is understandable that non-Islamic religions are banned from constructing churches or synagogues in Muslim countries. (Spoiler alert: Islam is the only religion that gets it "right". Two plus two really does equal four.)



And finally,

Saudi Arabia has sentenced a man to death for practicing witchcraft.

A man has been sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia for witchcraft because he makes predictions on television.
Ali Sibat is not even a Saudi national.
The Lebanese citizen was only visiting Saudi Arabia on pilgrimage when he was arrested in Medina last year.

A court in the city condemned him as a witch on November 9.

The only evidence presented in court was reportedly the claim he appeared regularly on Lebanese satellite issuing general advice on life and making predictions about the future.

The case is causing outrage among human rights campaigners but has made little news elsewhere despite the ludicrous nature of the charges and the extraordinary severity of Sibat's sentence.

"Saudi courts are sanctioning a literal witch hunt by the religious police," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.

"The crime of witchcraft is being used against all sorts of behavior, with the cruel threat of state sanctioned executions."

Ali Sibat's supporters say he was denied a lawyer at his trial and was tricked into making a confession.

He is not the only victim of Saudi Arabia's literal witch hunt. Human Rights Watch says two other people have been arrested on similar charges in the last month alone.

It claims a lower court in Jeddah started the trial of a Saudi this month who was arrested by the religious police and said to have smuggled a book of witchcraft into the kingdom.

In another case the religious police are said to have arrested for "sorcery" and "charlatanry" an Asian man accusing him of using supernatural powers to solve marital disputes and induce others to fall in love.

Let's wind things up with a post from Dr. Ralph, who reports on the continuing struggle against retailers who say "Holidays" instead of "Christmas":

I'm bracing myself for our latest holiday tradition, the bombastic pronouncements about the "War on Christmas."

For the past several years, self-anointed protectors of Christmas have been creating lists of which retailers are naughty or nice. This seems to boil down to who says "Holiday" in their advertising instead of "Christmas."

On the Naughty list have been such Satanic organizations as Sears, Wal-Mart, Target, The Gap, Banana Republic, Home Depot. This year's Naughty and Nice list has been helpfully compiled by the American Family Association of Tupelo, Mississippi.

You may recall the American Family Association, led by the Reverand Donald Wildmon, from their previous name, the National Federation for Decency. They reared their pointy little heads in 1977, when they campaigned against what they perceived as indecency on television. Interestingly they never seemed to care about violence, just sex.

It will come as no surprise that the AFA rails constantly against what they refer to as "the homosexual agenda." As is usually the case, they wrap their intolerance and hatred in religiosity.

Fighting immorality must be profitable: the AFA's annual budget is around $14 million. The Reverend Donald's son Tim is now President of the family business.

And a business it is, make no mistake.

In addition to their network of 28 radio stations (all Family Friendly!) they've expanded their Decency Empire to include news websites for the Christian point of view, support for home schoolers, a line of "Christian-focused" videos, estate planning, and Holy Land vacation tours.

They even hawk their very own AFA branded Internet Filter ("Use the trusted Family Filter the Wildmons use in their home!").

You can't make this shit up.

No, you can't make it up. All you can do is copy, paste, and lament. My religion is right, because it's the one I grew up with. Your religion is wrong, because it is so obviously silly. I can't defend my religion with anything other than appeals to brand loyalty. You can only defend yours with force.

But we're still going to hang, ban, or boycott each other because of these stories.

Like The Doctor said, you can't make this shit up.

Pre Traumatic Stress Disorder?

I hate to say this, but the U.S. mainstream media really can't die quickly enough. This is the money quote from the most recent Time magazine essay on the Fort Hood murders:

As an army psychiatrist treating soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, Major Nidal Malik Hasan had a front row seat on the brutal toll of war. It is too early to know exactly what may have triggered his murderous shooting rampage Thursday at Fort Hood — Hasan is accused of killing 12 people and wounding 32 others before he was wounded by a police officer — but it is not uncommon for therapists treating soldiers with Post Trumatic Stress Disorder (P.T.S.D.) to be swept up in a patient's displays of war-related paranoia, helplessness and fury.

There you have it: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder By Proxy. It is "not uncommon".

Thank God for the Brits. Why do I spend more and more time reading British and Australian accounts of our political events? Here's The Telegraph (U.K.):

Fort Hood gunman had told US military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.
He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.

Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.

Fort Hood killer linked to September 11 terrorists.... It was the latest in a series of "red flags" about his state of mind that have emerged since the massacre at Fort Hood, America's largest military installation, on Thursday....

Red Flags? Nobody has lifted that many Red Flags since Chairman Mao died. Good Lord, for the past year Hasan did everything but behead some infidels in the mess hall, and he still got promoted to major. But I digress....

Here's someone named Jeffrey Goldberg, on the special status given to Muslims in the U.S. media:

Here's a simple test: If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack? Of course. Elite opinion makers do not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism. Quite the opposite. It would be useful to apply the same standards of inquiry and criticism to all religions.

Here's a hint for Time magazine. If someone runs around shooting people while yelling Allahu Akbar (God Is Greatest), his religion might have something to do with the murders.

Hit that link to read about the eyewitnesses to Hasan yelling "Allahu Akbar". It'll take you to an excellent account that appeared in, uhmm, The Guardian (U.K.)

Karen Armstrong at TCU, Religion in an Age of Terror, and whether our Bible is conservative enough

I went to TCU last night to hear Karen Armstrong give a lecture on "Religion in an Age of Terror: Perils and Possibilities.” Ms. Armstrong is a freelance scholar and one of our best writers on the history of religion.


Here's a rough summary of what she had to say: Religious fundamentalism springs up as a reaction to modernity and the secular state. Those of us in the West experienced modernity as a trickle-down effect over a 300 year period. The Muslim world didn't. Their experience of what we call the modern world came about through colonialism, and is associated with a loss of independence and freedom. Their cultures had to modernize too quickly, and this separated many of the elites from the masses.


You still with me? I'm going somewhere with all this. Hang in there.


The elites saw some of the benefits of Western culture, and some Eastern leaders tried to change their citizens at gunpoint. (Nasser in Egypt, Ataturk in Turkey, etc. Soldiers sometimes were sent into the streets to rip burkhas from faces. Western dress codes were sometimes enforced.) People radicalized as a resistance to their own politicians. Hit these movements, and they become more extreme. All force does is confirm their suspicions.


Please stay with me. I'll get to the point, I promise.


The Gallup organization polled a large group of people in the Middle East shortly after the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. 93% of the Muslims interviewed said that the attacks were not justified. They cited the Koran, stating that to kill one person is to kill the whole world. The remaining 7% who said that the attacks were justified gave political reasons for their beliefs.
"At the beginning of the twentieth century, almost every single Muslim intellectual was in love with the West. After a visit to Paris, Muhammad Abdu (1849-1905), Grand Mufti of Egypt, remarked provocatively: ‘In France I saw Islam but no Muslims; in Cairo I see Muslims but no Islam.’ "


Stop and think of the implications of that for a minute.....


Armstrong went on to argue that almost all religions eventually develop an ideal of compassion as a reaction to new technologies of cruelty and destruction. This ideal of compassion is usually expressed as some form of The Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". The great faiths of the world know that the source of all pain is ego. Greed, selfishness, pride, etc. The goal in these faiths is to step outside the self.


We're almost to the money quote....


Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."
St. Augustine said that scripture teaches nothing but charity. And if you come to a (scriptural) passage....that seems to preach hatred, you've got to give it an allegorical or metaphorical interpretation, and make it speak of charity.


Got that? We can talk later about whether forcibly taking money from Group A to give to Group B really is "charity" or "compassion". (My belief is that shutting down Washington would be the most charitable and compassionate act imaginable, but I don't want to bog down in that mess during this post.) Armstrong closed her formal remarks by saying that....


We can choose the aspects of our religion that speak of division, hatred, and exclusion, or we can choose compassion.


I left the lecture considering it time well spent. Religious fundamentalism is a reaction to Modernity. Religious fundamentalism is a reaction to Modernity. I got it, but hadn't totally bought into the concept.
Then I got home and found three, count 'em, three emails alerting me to something called "The Conservative Bible Project" at the Conservapedia site. I don't make these things up. You can actually hit real live links to all of this. Here's The Huffington Post:


"Lo and behold, the Bible has gotten too liberal, according to a group of conservatives. And it needs a little editing.
That's the inspiration behind the Conservative Bible Project, which seeks to take the text back to its supposed right-wing roots.
Yes, even scripture is not orthodox enough for the modern conservative. Not that it's the fault of the author(s), exactly. The group cites a few reasons why the Bible is too progressive: "Lack of precision in the original language ... lack of precision in modern language" and "translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one."
So how can the Bible be conservatized? The group has proposed a Wikipedia-like group editing project. Some of the ideas would only bring the translation closer to the original. But others would fundamentally change the text.


Here are some of the areas where they believe our current translations have gone astray:


1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity.


Yeah, that's what I think of when I read the Book Of Revelation. Liberal bias. The list goes on:


5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census.
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.


The logic of Hell. Like, temporal offenses and eternal punishments. I get the logic there. And there's one more that I've never thought of, but I kinda like:


7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning.


Heck yes ! ! There actually onto something with that one. Prepare for blog posts about the Free Market meaning of Jesus's parables ! ! But here's where they're going to get into trouble:


8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.


Send the children out of the room. Brace yourself. The Bible story of the woman caught in adultery? And the crowd of religious wingnuts that was about to stone her? And Jesus says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ?
That story isn't in the oldest Greek copies of the Gospels. It got shoved in there later.
That's what happened with the last 8 verses of Mark, the part about the resurrection of Jesus. It's not in the oldest manuscripts.
That's what happened with something called the Johannine Comma, (I John 5:7-8, the passage that formed the doctrine of The Trinity.)
Religious conservatives are in for a rude awakening if they go tramping off into those thickets. If they take their findings seriously, they'll have no honest choice but to become religious liberals. But, I digress.


Here's my point: Last night I spent a couple of hours listening to one of our greatest religious historians explain why religious fundamentalism is a reaction to Modernity and Change. When I got home, I found that our local religious fundamentalists had decided that their basic text wasn't fundamentalist enough, and had issued calls to reissue a more conservative version.


Unbelievable.

From The Jihadist Safety Consultant, on appropriate methods of martyrdom

To: All employees, jihadists, Al-Qaeda operatives, and former associates of the late Abdullah Hassan Taleh Al Asiri

From: Rickle Abu-Noir, Jihadist Safety Consultant

Re: Appropriate methods of martyrdom

Please reset your "This Shop Has Worked ____ Days Without A Lost Time Accident" calendars back to zero. We were doing so well, and now this disaster.
It has been more than a year since I was forced by your carelessness to send a safety memo. I encourage you to refresh your memories now, and read my previous message.

I write and write and write, and you ignore my warnings. Do any of you think first before trying to kill yourself? Abdullah Hassan Taleh Al Asiri sent himself into the next life in a shameful manner, and we have nothing to show for it.

Here is a mocking account of Asiri's death from the infidel media:

JEDDAH – Suicide bomber Abdullah Asiri had inserted around half a kilogram of explosives into his own body to carry out his failed assassination attempt of Prince Muhammad Bin Naif, Assistant Minister of Interior for Security Affairs, last week.

Like many of you, I wondered how Asiri could have ingested a half kilo of explosives. Did he eat it with his falafel? With some nice pita bread? Was it a potluck event in the jihadist breakroom? I was impressed with his creativity until the next paragraph:

As more details emerged of the events surrounding the attack that took place at the Prince’s home in Obhur, sources told Okaz newspaper Friday that Asiri’s mobile telephone was equipped with two SIM cards, one of which was used to call members of the terrorist organization in Yemen, and the other to detonate the device located inside Abdullah Hassan Asiri’s rectum via a call from the group.

As you know, this type of perversion is against the laws of Islam. It is a stench in the nostrils of Allah. It even offends the Baptists of Texas, so may the fleas of ten thousand camels nestle in Asiri's enlarged nether regions for all eternity.

What made you people think this would be effective?

According to sources, Asiri told palace officials while waiting for Prince Muhammad to arrive that he would have to “have a lie down” due to fatigue if the Prince was late, something which analysts say could have been due to the presence of the explosives in his body.

Asiri had reportedly not eaten nor consumed any liquid for 40 hours, fearing that they might disturb the effect of the explosives. Asiri reportedly waited less than an hour until the arrival of Prince Muhammad and the Prince sat next to him in an uncustomary position in a corner of the room to hear him better, only an arm-rest separating them.

it could have been due to the presence of the explosives? Could have been?? Ya think ??? I swear by Muhammad's child bride, I vow, I declare that I will bring you people into compliance with all safety regulations, and I will do it quickly.
From now on, let it be understood that it is impossible, impossible, impossible to allow a half kilo of explosives and a detonator to enter your exit, and then walk around for 40 hours without experiencing fatigue. The experience will quickly become tiresome.
Any questions? Good.

This is from yet another infidel, swine eating website:

It said the attacker concealed the explosives in his anus, allowing him to evade detection.
The network also quoted an expert as saying that the method of concealment aimed the blast away from the target, while blowing the bomber to bits....

Did Asiri not remember that his American-loving, jihadist-hating target is also a (false) follower of Muhammed? Did Asiri forget that he had a convenient excuse to kneel on the floor with his nose pointed toward Mecca and his ass toward his target?
No. Asiri obviously turned his master blaster away from his target, letting loose the most destructive fart since Allah shat forth the Zagros Mountain Range.

But like many of us in the days after the feast of Eid-ul-Fitr, he released nothing but noise and wind.
And small bits if Asiri.
Do not think we are through discussing this incident yet. We have a video of the clownish Asiri, bragging about the detonator that is about to go In Through His Out Door, may Allah vomit upon his perverted soul.



Does anyone else notice anything unusual about Asiri in this video? Notice that Asiri may have spent more time bonding with his mother than his father? Notice that his clothing is immaculate? Notice the undisguised joy with which he is holding the detonator? Do you think Asiri's tent might have tasteful track lighting, color-coordinated rugs, some Barbra Streisand CD's and a Shih-Tzu? Most of you would be terrified of having someone shove electronics into your back passage.

Asiri seems delighted.

Asiri volunteered for this mission because he liked it, you fools. He was an ass bandit of the worst sort. Yes, one of you packed a half kilo of explosives into his camel padding, but most of it leaked out long before he approached his target. Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT select someone for this type of martyrdom if his rear end has been used as a Hamster Habitrail.

I don't think Asiri died thinking of 72 female virgins.

This was a huge disappointment and it embarrassed us all over the world. Please remember the primary goal of our organization: Martyrdom, Martyrdom, Martyrdom.
But Allah doesn't like it if you like it.

Sincerely,

Rickle Abu-Noir
Jihadist Safety Consultant

John Donatich, Yale University Press, The Jewel Of Medina, and the whimper of whipped dogs.

About a year ago, Random House pulled the plug on a novel about the prophet Mohammed and his child bride.
When time permits, please compare the Weasel Words in this old press release about "The Jewel Of Medina" by Sherry Jones, and John Donatich's whimpering in yesterday's NYT about "The Cartoons That Shook The World", a Yale University Press book about the cartoons published in Denmark that won't be published in Yale's book about the cartoons. (See previous post.)

After sending out advance editions of the novel THE JEWEL OF MEDINA, we received in response, from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.
We felt an obligation to take these concerns very seriously. We consulted with security experts as well as with scholars of Islam, whom we asked to review the book and offer their assessments of potential reactions.

I'll bet you dollars against donuts that the security experts and "scholars of Islam" in the Jewel Of Medina controversy overlap with the security experts and schoolmarms that John Donatich allowed to squash the Danish cartoon book.
These people are authoritative, yet anonymous.

We stand firmly by our responsibility to support our authors and the free discussion of ideas, even those that may be construed as offensive by some.

No, you don't. You didn't. You can't say that any more. You really can't. The point of publishing something like this is to offer another point of view, change people's minds, provoke a discussion, and possibly offend people. You caved in. You didn't support your authors and the free discussion of ideas. Notice the Weasel Words "may", "construed", and "some".

However, a publisher must weigh that responsibility against others that it also bears, and in this instance we decided, after much deliberation, to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel. The author and Ballantine subsequently agreed to terminate the agreement, with the understanding that the author would be free to publish elsewhere, if she so chose.

- The Random House Publishing Group

So who are these people that can tell Yale and Random House what to censor? Who elected them? Do they even exist? If you look at the article on the cartoon book, you'll see that they only way to learn what they said is by promising not to tell anyone.

Amazing.

Yale University Press bans controversial cartoons of Muhammad in new book about controversial cartoons of Muhammad.

I don't expect anyone to read this ridiculously long post. I'm just ranting. This is from The New York Times, with a fresh coat of Whitening for Hot Air....

It’s not all that surprising that Yale University Press would be wary of reprinting notoriously controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a forthcoming book.

Actually, it is surprising. And it's funny. When I was in the literary retail racket, I didn't hesitate to sell Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" or "American Psycho" by Brett Easton Ellis, or to host autographings by the Roe vs Wade lawyer, all despite some threats. You hire a security guard, and go on with your job.

Full Disclosure: I'm not proud of it, but I also sold a lot of Danielle Steel novels.

After all, when the 12 caricatures were first published by a Danish newspaper a few years ago and reprinted by other European publications, Muslims all over the world angrily protested, calling the images — which included one in which Muhammad wore a turban in the shape of a bomb — blasphemous.

That makes it sound like an immediate cause and effect relationship. It wasn't until a group of outrage-mongers produced a drawing of Big Mo's face on the body of a pig, several months after the initial publication of the cartoons, that the "Muslims all over the world angrily protested".

In the Middle East and Africa some rioted, burning and vandalizing embassies; others demanded a boycott of Danish goods; a few nations recalled their ambassadors from Denmark. In the end at least 200 people were killed.

That's what happens when you spread ink on paper to make satirical comments about all-powerful beings who can't take up for themselves.

So Yale University and Yale University Press consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous:

Let's get real here....Is there ANY doubt in your mind what that group is going to recommend?

The book, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005.

This is like writing a book about pencil sharpeners, but being told that you can't mention, you know, those devices with rotating blades that, you know what I'm talking about? they, like, fit on the end of wooden writing instruments, and you rotate them so that, you know, it gives them a fine point?

What’s more, they suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, specifically, a drawing for a children’s book; an Ottoman print; and a sketch by the 19th-century artist Gustave Doré of Muhammad being tormented in Hell, an episode from Dante’s “Inferno” that has been depicted by Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and Dalí.

This is what we now call academic freedom. It's why they get tenure. It's why people who work in that environment have jobs for life. So they don't have to worry about offending people who think their god(s) can't take up for themselves.

The book’s author, Jytte Klausen, a Danish-born professor of politics at Brandeis University, in Waltham, Mass., reluctantly accepted Yale University Press’s decision not to publish the cartoons. But she was disturbed by the withdrawal of the other representations of Muhammad. All of those images are widely available, Ms. Klausen said by telephone, adding that “Muslim friends, leaders and activists thought that the incident was misunderstood, so the cartoons needed to be reprinted so we could have a discussion about it.” The book is due out in November.

I can't wait to open this book and dive into the Politically Correct Sensitivityspeak that Yale is going to dump into the preface. Can't wait. Will reprint it here.

John Donatich, the director of Yale University Press, said by telephone that the decision was difficult, but the recommendation to withdraw the images, including the historical ones of Muhammad, was “overwhelming and unanimous.” The cartoons are freely available on the Internet and can be accurately described in words, Mr. Donatich said, so reprinting them could be interpreted easily as gratuitous.

John Donatich can be described in words also, but I'll refrain. Notice the weasel words "could" and "interpreted".

He noted that he had been involved in publishing other controversial books — like “The King Never Smiles” by Paul M. Handley, a recent unauthorized biography of Thailand’s current monarch — and “I’ve never blinked.” But, he said, “when it came between that and blood on my hands, there was no question.”

A lot of great work has been produced in dangerous circumstances. Tom Paine - Common Sense. William Tyndale - The English Bible. John Bunyan - Pilgrim's Progress. Voltaire scratching out plays in the Bastille.

The line ends with John Donatich.

Reza Aslan, a religion scholar and the author of “No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam,” is a fan of the book but decided to withdraw his supportive blurb that was to appear in the book after Yale University Press dropped the pictures. The book is “a definitive account of the entire controversy,” he said, “but to not include the actual cartoons is to me, frankly, idiotic.” In Mr. Aslan’s view no danger remains. “The controversy has died out now, anyone who wants to see them can see them,” he said of the cartoons, noting that he has written and lectured extensively about the incident and shown the cartoons without any negative reaction. He added that none of the violence occurred in the United States: “There were people who were annoyed, and what kind of publishing house doesn’t publish something that annoys some people?”

Most academic writing is so dense and burdened with so much jargon that it really doesn't annoy anyone. No one finishes it who doesn't already agree with it.

“This is an academic book for an academic audience by an academic press,” he continued. “There is no chance of this book having a global audience, let alone causing a global outcry.” He added, “It’s not just academic cowardice, it is just silly and unnecessary.”

True. My younger brother is a history professor, and recently published a book through an academic press. He's got an interesting story to tell, he's a great writer, but the dang book costs $78.00. Not much chance of a global audience there.

Mr. Donatich said that the images were still provoking unrest as recently as last year when the Danish police arrested three men suspected of trying to kill the artist who drew the cartoon depicting Muhammad’s turban as a bomb. He quoted one of the experts consulted by Yale — Ibrahim Gambari, special adviser to the secretary general of the United Nations and the former foreign minister of Nigeria — as concluding: “You can count on violence if any illustration of the prophet is published. It will cause riots, I predict, from Indonesia to Nigeria.”

That swath of real estate from Indonesia to Nigeria doesn't include Yale, does it?

Aside from the disagreement about the images, Ms. Klausen said she was also disturbed by Yale’s insistence that she could read a 14-page summary of the consultants’ recommendations only if she signed a confidentiality agreement that forbade her from talking about them. “I perceive it to be a gag order,” she said, after declining to sign. While she could understand why some of the individuals consulted might prefer to remain unidentified, she said, she did not see why she should be precluded from talking about their conclusions.

I've beaten this dead horse elsewhere, but outside of a Townhall Healthcare meeting, is there any place on earth that stifles Free Speech more than academia? (I really do hate to sound so anti-intellectual, but damn....)

Linda Koch Lorimer, vice president and secretary of Yale University, who had discussed the summary with Ms. Klausen, said on Wednesday that she was merely following the original wishes of the consultants, some of whom subsequently agreed to be identified.

1. We're going to get people from all over the world to tell us what to do in this situation.

2. We're going to keep their recommendations (and identities) a secret.

3. The only way to read their recommendations is to promise that you won't ever, ever, ever discuss their recommendations.

4. Therefore, the 14-page document outlining their recommendations could be whatever the person who typed it wants it to be.

5. Brilliant.

....Other publishers, including The New York Times, chose not to print the cartoons or images of Muhammad when the controversy erupted worldwide in February 2006...

Face Of Muhammad cartoon came from here.

"Fitna", by Geert Wilders - A film about "The Religion Of Peace"

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs brings us the disturbing news that Dutch politician and filmmaker Geert Wilders will be prosecuted "for inciting racial hatred with anti-Islamic statements that include calling the Quran a "fascist book," a Dutch court ruled Wednesday.

Well, look at the man's movie, Fitna. That's what all of this is really about. Youtube breaks it into two eight minute sections. It's very well done. Wilders gives references from the Koran or a Haddith, then shows newsclips of the consequences of following the teachings of the seventh century pedophile who inspired those references. There's little or no narration, no voiceover explaining the things we're seeing, and no deniability about the accuracy of his film.


Let's break it up a bit with this from Jihadwatch: "And make no mistake: even though the Muslims in the Netherlands and elsewhere in the West present themselves as embattled victims of racism and "Islamophobia," that is exactly what is going on here: this is just one part of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference's efforts to silence speech that they deem critical of Islam -- including "defamation of Islam" that goes under the "pretext" of "freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security."



I don't consider myself to be Islamaphobic. The word seems to imply a fear of Muslims. I've liked the Muslims that I've worked with ok, simply because they didn't really believe that Jews were evil, or that I was evil, or that Muhammad flew from Mecca to Jerusalem on a winged horse that had the face of a man.
But this thing with Wilders is bad news. Surf the 'net for a while, and you'll see that he's probably going to come to the U.S. to escape persecution prosecution. The Dutch government will make Tut-Tutting noises about minority rights, sensitivity, and respect for the beliefs of others. In the meantime, they've allowed artists like Theo Van Gogh to be beheaded by Muslim extremists, and they'll probably drive Wilders across the Atlantic.

This is bullshit. It's not sensitivity. It's not respect. It's the whimper of whipped dogs, rolling on their backs before one of the most evil belief systems ever devised by man.

Here's Samizdata's Perry De Havilland on the same issue.

A Translation From The Original English

Chris and NickM from the Counting Cats blog are frequent commenters on this site.

I believe that the Counting Cats site should join Shakespeare, The King James Bible, and William Faulkner as one of the great monuments to the glory of the English language.

As I understand it, Chris lives in Australia and Nick is in England.

But for Texans, Mississippians and, well, people who don't usually listen to the BBC, Masterpiece Theater, Shakespeare, or even Monty Python, some of the Counting Cats vocabulary can be difficult. As in Shakespeare, The KJV, and Wild Willie Faulkner, the terminology can be a barrier to understanding.

As a service to the English speaking world, I am going to translate the difficult terms in one of NickM's posts from the beautiful (yet primitive) form of English used in the U.K. into the more advanced form used in Fort Worth, Texas. This is Nick's story of a Mr. Khoja, who is suing his employer. Please remember that standards for Political Correctness in England are not as evolved as they are in Cowtown. After all, England is in Europe. Fort Worth is in west Texas. Let's begin:

A Muslim chef is suing the Met because he is feels religiously discriminated against because he is expected to cook bacon and pork sausages for the dibbles’s breakfasts.

You mighta heard about the Muslims. They're now England's top dog church, and they're gonna control the U.K. courthouses if everybody else allows them to practice Sharia Law on British soil.
A "chef" is a fancy name for someone who cooks. Genuine working chefs can actually be seen at a few places over in Dallas.
"Religious Discrimination" is like the feeling experienced in Fort Worth by all non-Baptists. It's merely what they should expect.
Nick accidentally shows us how badly his Mama raised him when he says "pork sausage". (In many primitive cultures, they actually make sausage from something besides pigs. If I'm lyin', I'm dyin'.)
"The Met" is short for "Metropolitan Police Service".
The word "dibble" started off funny. According to The Urban Dictionary, a dibble is a "....Police officer, a name taken from the U.S. cartoon, Top Cat, where the local cop is called Officer Dibble. Used in Northwest England."

He is no ingenue.

This dude didn't just fall off a Tater Wagon on his way into town.

He’s a former senior catering manager at Hendon Police College and sixty years old.

A "senior catering manager" is somebody who rides herd on a lot of cooks. If he's done that job, and he's already older than God's dog, then Nick wants us to know that this particular Muslim chef has handled lots and lots of pork sausage on his ride up the trail to being the senior catering manager. He's handled bacon. And ham. And pig feet, pork rinds, and pork tenderloin, which is damn good with biscuits for breakfast. Chitlins might be too much, though.

NickM usually does a lot of bellyachin' about government waste, and he's missing a chance to ask "What the hell does Hendon Police College need with a senior catering manager?". None of my business. It's Nick's website.

You’d a thunk by now he would have come across that phenomenon called the “full English Breakfast” by now.

"You'd a thunk" is prob'ly an American saying, since I understood it without looking it up. This is a subject for further research.

Here's some Wikipedia, talking about a "Full English Breakfast": The normal ingredients of a traditional full English breakfast are: bacon, eggs, fried or grilled tomatoes, fried mushrooms, fried bread or toast, and sausages, usually served with a cup of tea. Black pudding is added in some regions as well as fried leftover mashed potatoes. Originally a way to use up leftover vegetables from the main of the day before, bubble and squeak, shallow-fried leftover vegetables with potato, has become a breakfast feature in its own right. Baked beans and hash browns are modern additions that have crept into many recipes.

After all that, if you're curious, you can hit on this next link and read about Gout in Britain.

I don’t know if Khoja is involved in the all too common now legal jihad or if he is merely fancying retirement and wants a nice little nest-egg and his solicitor told him he could make a packet out of it.

The British folks say "his solicitor" instead of "his g**damn Lawyer". A "packet" is a small parcel, in this case, one that contains money. Therefore, Nick isn't sure if Mr. Khoja 1) wants to make a religious statement by raising hell and rolling a stump under it, or 2) just wants to make a whole lot of money by suing the government.

I was prepared to consider the latter - a chancer on the make - the most likely until I saw this…

A Chancer, says WordWeb Online, is "Someone who risks loss or injury in the in the hope of gain or excitement" (we've all been there, ain't we?) or "A person who places expediency above principle".

I bet that last one nailed it.

Nick quotes from the article he saw in The Daily Mail.....

Britain’s most senior Muslim officer, Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, has accused the force of racial discrimination and the National Black Police Association has urged people from ethnic minorities not to join.

Mr Khoja was originally represented by Dr Shahrokh Mireskandari, the controversial lawyer at the centre of the race war, but changed solicitors in August.

His current lawyer Khalid Sofi said there was an ‘important issue of principle at stake in Mr Khoja’s case’.

‘He has genuine and strong religious beliefs and expects that they will be accommodated,’ he added.

The Daily Mail has probably got way more readers than The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, but they can't even spell the word "center". Lordy, what a country.
Now we're back to Nick's opinions, with no more interruptions from The Daily Mail.

Can we for the fifteenth billion time state that religion does not equal race?

In the U.S., we'd say "fifteen billionth time", but you probably got his point. Why is the National Black Policeman's Association getting riled up over a church problem? Are races and religions really one and the same? Doesn't your religion depend on thinking and reasoning things out all by yourself? Or are you just born into it? Hmmmm..... Awww, never mind.

I just wish all the Muslims and Jews over there could just sit down and settle their differences like Christians.

For the love of God / Allah / Jehovah / the Flying Spaghetti Monster....

1) God: the only God, the one that created heaven and earth in six days, the Supreme Being worshipped by Fort Worth Baptists.
2) Allah: the Arab mis-pronunciation of the word "God".
3) Jehovah: another name for God, invented by William Tyndale as a way to pronounce the Hebrew YHWH, which didn't have any vowels.
4) The Flying Spaghetti Monster: a critter in another religion, somewhere between Catholic and Cooking, where heaven and earth was both made by The FSM using "his noodly appendage".

....For the love of God, please leave that canard (a lie) keyed-up and on it’s rims on the hard shoulder. (I ain't 100% sure, but I think it means "strip the tires off of it and leave it on the side of the road with the motor running.)

Please. Pretty please. And quite what the NBPA is doing by telling ethnic minorities not to join the fuzz (Police) is utterly beyond me.

That is beyond parody. (He can't even make fun of it. He's been around the world 8 times and to 3 Messican funerals, and he's still ain't seen anything like it.)

I am gob-smacked. (Bewildered. "Everlasting Gobsmackers" is the candy in "Charlie And The Chocolate Factory" - a big book without any pictures by Roald Dahl.)

I am truly discombobulated. (Confused as a goat on astroturf.)

I mean you’ve got a bunch of folk of colour (that's a lot better than the politically incorrect term "colored people", isn't it?) who are coppers (police) telling other folk of colour not to bother joining because… What, you might only rise to Assistant Comissioner!


Bloody hell, (Hell's Bells) that pays a heck of a lot more sponds (Greenbacks. A half breed of "pounds sterling") than I’m ever likely to see. Apart from that really shouldn’t the NBPA be trying to recruit more technicolour (minority) officers? I mean, really, such an organisation shouldn’t even exist (this is the truth folks - the UK is one of the least racist societies on the planet - I know that fact must cut wannabee Malcolm Xs to the quick but a fact it remains) but given that it does exist one would have thought that’s it’s primary justification would be to recruit more, not fewer, officers of African and Asian descent.

But then I’m reet naive me. (The Urban Dictionary has 3 meanings of "reet", and the English scholars and experts gathered around my laptop cain't agree about the right one. I don't know Nick well enough to say, since we've howdy'd, but we ain't shook yet.)

Of course that isn’t it’s role. Because ya see if it ever did achieve it’s alleged goal then that’s the point at which the gravy train (the easy money) hits the buffers (ends) and it’s passengers (the Professional Victims) have to find a proper way to make a living.

Instead, why not discourage blacks and Asians from joining the force so you can bitch (bitch) about the situation ad infinitum (a long, long, long time).

Oh, and go for quotas for promotion at the same time. Brilliant! You go for quotas and restrict the number of people elligible then you do a number for your own progress up the greasy pole. (Nick says everybody who whines about cooking pork should just be part of a set-aside. Go ahead and have the government separate the sheep from the goats. To "progress up the greasy pole" means to move further up the feed trough. Make up a quota for that too.)

Yes, I know that’s a political term but any bugger (fudge-packer) who believes that any police position above sergeant in the UK isn’t intrinsically a political one is utterly deluded (loco). Hell, Bob Peel is doing a triple salko in the grave....(Ok, this gets complicated. Robert Peel is who thought up the police force. A triple salko is a spinning move in gymnastics and ice skating. So Nick is saying that the father of the modern police force is turning over in his grave because muslim cooks don't want to cook pigs.)

Sam Vimes is back on the sauce (despite the best efforts of Lady Vimes and indeed Nobby Nobbs and Fred Colon) over it. (Sam Vimes is a policeman in some science fiction books. To go "back on the sauce" means, in Baptist terms, to succumb to the temptations of Demon Rum. Nick is saying that a made-up policeman has fallen off the wagon because muslim cooks don't want to cook pigs.)

This utterly stinks. (This is a bunch of horsecrap.) I shall leave you with two addendums to this rant. (Nick wants to make two more points and tell a deathbed conversion story, then he's going to end the sermon and pass the collection plate.)

1) The man claims to be a truly observant Muslim. (Mr. Khoja claims to practice what he preaches.) Judging by the piccy (pictures in the newspaper) he isn’t observing the sunna (Muslim Bible verses) about not shaving his beard. (Mr. Khoja shaves his face.) If he can pick and choose then so can his employers.

2) Tolerance is a two way street. My wife is a vegetarian. (Vegetarians are people who don't eat meat. Yes, they exist. By choice !!!!)

She was once even a vegan (she went through another stage where she wouldn't even wear leather. But then she got cured.)

....and I thought she was from Derbyshire - boom, boom! (this is a very bad Nick joke. Some scholars think it was thrown in here by someone else.)

....but she’s happy to handle meat. Hell, a few years back I did a swallow dive down the stairs (5.9 for artistic expression) and broke both wrists. (See the comments about a "Triple Salko") She was perfectly happy to cook me a steak at the time. She thinks eating meat is wrong.

She has a moral objection to killing animals (I once heard that there was a person in Dallas who felt this way) but her biggest concern was messing it up because she wasn’t 100% sure what she was doing. (I know, I know....you're wondering why he married her if she couldn't cook a steak. But these are British people. They're a different breed of cat.)

My wife has a logical, sensible (I was once almost a vegetarian myself) reason for objecting to all meat. She is also an atheist. (Atheist: Somebody who doesn't believe that God didn't create animals for her to not eat. Or someone who does believe that God didn't create animals for her to eat. Or someone who doesn't believe that God did create animals for her to not eat. It gets complicated.)

Why does that count for less than the opinion of a follower of a depraved C7th Bedouin (7th Century nomad) on one sort of meat? Well why? The fact that my wife was born in 1979 and Muhammed died in 632 doesn’t cut it. (It makes no sense. It don't add up.) Neither does the fact that Big Mo (Muhammed, the Muslim Jesus) has umpty million followers (lots of deluded victims). Why do we give religions such scope beyond what we allow the un-religious? I mean, at the end of the day, it’s all just opinion, right?

*********************
Like many of our beliefs about eating meat, pig cooking, the validity of Muhammed and God and Jehovah and The Flying Spaghetti Monster, this translation is all an opinion. I think my translation is accurate, others might not.

Someone claiming to be NickM, or claiming to speak for NickM, might eventually sign on and take issue with my interpretation of NickM's words. I'm going to require a very high level of proof before I believe that it's really NickM speaking, though.

I've become very, very loyal to this translation.