If I ever had any doubt that there are Christaphobes in the United States, that doubt has been vanquished. I knew the ACLU didn't like the idea of the manger scene at Christmas being represented in the Town Squares across America. But that's because they don't have three wise men and a virgin in their organization.

So what's Mikey Weinstein's problem?

I guess he wants to completely divest our military of anything seemingly Christian.

His latest foray against Christianity in the military involves a Cross (why am I not surprised) at Fort Carson. The cross is located at Fort Carson's Evans Army Community Hospital and has with it a religious motto in Latin (Pro deo Humanitate) which translates: “For God and Humanity” and dates back to the days of Hippocrates, a pre-Christian Greek physician.

One has to wonder if it's the words or merely the Cross Mikey despises.

Either way, Mikey's reason for wanting it removed is the most ridiculous nonsense I've heard in my life: Weinstein is afraid that the emblem will send the message that the Army is in a Holy War against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Exactly how many Afghanis and Iraqis does he think will even know this emblem exists?

I guess they all will now that Mikey has decided to whine from the rooftops and threaten to sue the Army.

But is anyone other than himself, and a few paranoid Talibani, really stupid enough to think the emblem is about crusades? It's in a HOSPITAL for crying out loud! And it's a reference to the service of medical personnel within the military.

The emblem has been in place at Fort Carson since 1969 and nobody seems to have been bothered by it until now.

According to Lt. Col. Steve Wollman, the Army Institute of Heraldry had approved the image, noting that it's design was based on the “emblem of Mercy” dating back to the Middle Ages when pilgrims carried a Cross with a spiked base to mark the spot of their encampment.

I'm sorry if all of this history offends Mikey, but good grief, almost anything having to do with heraldry will have some connection to Christianity. Does Mikey intend to do away with historical symbolism if it has any ties to any religion? Or just the Christian ones?

To date, his Religious Freedom Foundation has only gone after things relating to Christianity.

What I find rather interesting is that Weinstein hasn't gone after the “biggies” yet. You know. The medals?

For example, the Medal of Valor. Minerva's head is on it and Minerva is most certainly a religious symbol (the goddess of poetry, medicine, etc.) She was worshiped, was she not? Then how come SHE gets a pass from Mikey and the Cross doesn't?

And then, there's the Legion of Merit medal which has on it stars arranged in the shape of the Star of David. Talk about pissing off Muslim terrorists!

Ooops! Mikey's Jewish. Nevermind.

And if we want to become totally anal, anything with a “+” shape could be potentially offending to Muslims. Several medals from various branches of the military contain the traditional + shape cross. The cross is the symbol of Christianity, right? So why isn't Mikey worried about Muslim terrorists being upset by them?

I suppose everyone needs a hobby, but could it be Mikey is going too far here?

And once again, Mikey is filing his lawsuit on behalf of “unnamed” persons. Shouldn't the Department of the Army be allowed to face it's accusers? Why won't these people stand behind the courage of their convictions?

I hope the Army doesn't cave. And I hope that one day Mikey's organization will live up to it's name: the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM foundation. Right now it's looking like anything but an organization supporting religious freedom. Instead it's resembling the Inquisitions, with Mikey as the Grand Inquisitor.

Coptic Cross
Cathar Cross
Cross Pattee

Maltese Heraldry Cross

The Distinguished Flying Cross Medal

Distinguished Service Cross

News reports of a 100 million dollar mosque to be built two blocks from ground zero likely evokes different emotions from different people. Muslims supporting it claim that this venture will help create a better understanding of Islam and help heal the wounds of 9-11.

But others aren't so thrilled.

“I realize it’s not all of them, but I don’t want to have to go down to a memorial where my son died on 9/11 and look at a mosque,” said retired NYFD Deputy Chief Jim Riches – whose son Jim, a firefighter, was killed on 9/11.
"If you ask me, it’s a religion of hate,” said Riches.

Rosemary Cain of Massapequa, L.I., whose son, Firefighter George Cain, 35, was killed in the 2001 attacks, called the project a “slap in the face.”

“I think it’s despicable. That’s sacred ground,” said Cain.

“How could anybody give them permission to build a mosque there? It tarnishes the area.”

We aren't talking a small building. The old Burlington Coat Factory is the place where a 13-story, glass front Mosque will be built, gleaming in the sunlight by day, and lighting the night sky with decorative lighting at night. The Mosque will be part of what is likely to be one of the largest Islamic centers in the U.S.

But while victim families struggle with a sense of being shunned for pluralism, Muslim proponents see it as an opportunity to separate themselves from the Muslims who planned and participated in the 9-11 attacks.

Daisy Kahn, director of the Muslim Society, said:

"It will have a real community feel, to celebrate the pluralism in the United States, as well as in the Islamic religion. It will also serve as a major platform for amplifying the silent voice of the majority of Muslims who have nothing to do with extremist ideologies. It will counter the extremist momentum."

That logic seems rather insensitive to me. Granted, if I were Muslim I would want to separate myself from the 9-11 attackers as well. But there seems to me a problem with using an edifice of this magnitude to make that statement and that problem is (and has been since 2001) the en mass silence of American Muslims. Sure, individuals and even groups have spoken against terrorism on paper and in websites, but when was the last time you saw Muslims out en mass protesting against the extremists?

Protests Against Terrorism: Can the Muslim Community Pull it off?
There have been protests against terrorism by Muslim groups. A survey of those events, however, seems to offer little solace to those who want followers of Islam to genuinely oppose terrorism. Rather, the numbers seem to show a disinterest about, if not a silent hostility towards, any effort by Muslims to speak against terrorism.

In looking at the data for the past 10 years (since 9-11) I have noticed a severe shortfall in the number of protests against the terrorist acts of violence perpetrated by “radical” Muslims. Of course nobody expects there to be a standing protest against every act or attempted act of terror. However, there seems to be a persistent shortfall.

Yet even when there is an attempt to show the world that Islam opposes such activity, the communities of Muslims within the United States seems to fall woefully short. For example, in 2004 an organization called Free Muslims, which focuses on opposing terrorism, held a protest against terrorist activities.

Phoenix, Arizona, where the event was to be held, boasted some 50,000 Muslims back then. And it was projected that thousands would show up. A mere 250 people (police estimate was 400) showed up.

Again, in May of 2005, there was a slated anti-terrorism march for Muslims. Some seventy Islamic groups signed on for the rally but, in the end, there were only 50 or so people who showed up.

It didn't get any better for Sharida McKenzie, a convert to Islam living in Texas, who decided to organize a rally for peace. September 10th came and went with very limited participation from Muslims (200 showed up out of the estimated 140,000 Muslims across the state), in spite of her appearance on Glenn Beck, a nationally syndicated broadcast. McKenzie has continued doing the rallies but with no sizable crowds showing up.

On September 25, 2009 there was supposed to be an Islamic Day of Prayer at Capitol Hill, next to the White House, with an estimated 50,000 expected to show up. Bear in mind please that this came in the wake of President Obama, just two weeks earlier, downplaying the official National Day of Prayer first established by Harry S. Truman because Obama was concerned about “offending” people.

The expected 50,000 person goal fell short by tens of thousands. A little over 3,000 showed up to pray for our country in the name of Islam.

More recently, in the wake of the attempted terrorist attempt on flight 253 (the crotch bomber), another rally against terrorism was slated, this time in Detroit, Michigan. According to the Psychiatric News (2005) Michigan has the second largest population of Muslims in the world (outside the Middle East), bested only by France. Yet even with this population at their disposal, Muslims opposing terrorism saw an attendance of a mere 150 people. In a strange twist of irony, the person putting the rally together was himself the recipient of a death threat from other Muslims for his efforts.

Between a combination of what appears to be “too little, too late” for some Americans (and especially those who had loved ones killed in 9-11) and the apparent and glaring apathy of the vast majority of American Muslims, its little wonder that there's offense being taken at the building of the Mosque near ground zero.

Sure, individuals and even groups of Muslims have denounced the act of terror on 9-11 and other acts since then. But those statements are found only by googly googling for onesself and seldom, if ever, are they cited in the media- not because media won't do it- but because the statements on paper have very little meaning to the average American.

What we want to see is ACTION. The same emotional response one sees whenever the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, is “offended”. Imagine, if you will, what the attitude would be towards Muslims if, immediately following 9-11, large groups of Muslims had burned an Osama Bin Ladin in effigy? Or if, when we went into Iraq and deposed Saddam, Muslims in the states had cheered?

Or suppose, instead of simply saying “Islam is Peace”, Muslims were willing to have an open dialog about passages in the Koran used by people like Osama bin Laden and used such dialogs to stem a rising tide of jihadi activity? Instead of trying to “revert” people, how about trying to curtail the acceptance of the alleged “passages of terror” interpretations held by incendiary groups? Instead of complaining about the Holy Land Foundation being picked on, how about condemning their ties to terrorist organizations and marginalizing the co-conspirators (like CAIR, for one)?

A Slap in the Face.
For some of the surviving families, this building is a slap in the face. It's almost like New Yorkers are apologizing for any inconvenience caused to Muslims because of the terrorist attacks performed by Muslims.

But Daisy Khan said something that is very disturbing to many of us who are not New Yorkers:

"The time for a center like this has come because Islam is an American religion. We need to take the 9/11 tragedy and turn it into something very positive."

Talk about a slap in the face!?

Statements like these are so wrong on so many levels.

To begin with, like Judaism and Christianity, Islam began in the Middle East, not in America. But unlike Judaism and Christianity, adherents of Islam refuse to assimilate to their Western environment and culture. You don't find Christians getting upset if there's a movie mocking Christ (they simply boycott it and advertisers). You don't find Jewish people threatening to carry out anti-blasphemy laws if or when someone mocks Moses or Abraham. But Southpark (not my favorite show) creators have been warned they they could meet the same fate as Theo VanGough, who was murdered in broad daylight, by a Muslim, because VanGough's movie was an offense to Islam.

Secondly, there's very few religious groups in America who can claim to be “an American religion.” None of the three semitic ones can, if we go by origins. But at least the earliest pioneers to America were from Christianity and Judaism, and contrary to Islamic attempts to prove otherwise, there's no evidence that any Muslims participated in the founding of America nor it's fight to become free and independent of England.

I would say the Native peoples hold the first link of the chain as “American religions.” Followed by others, like the Mormons, who actually had their start IN America.

Muslims have made many claims on America over the years. One of the strangest has been to claim that Muslims came here to America before Columbus and that certain Native tribes had inter-married with these newly arriving Muslims. This may seem ludicrous to those who have studied the origins of First Nations people (the Algonquins of Canada had to stifle an Islamic resource for public schools which erroneously claimed this about their tribe) but it's an attempt to Islamicize America instead of assimilating to the established culture.

As the daughter of immigrants, I have no problem with people wanting to keep their culture alive within their own family grouping. I have no problem with people of a particular ethnic or national background wanting to band together in groups within the broader community, either. Things like “China Town” and “Little Italy” in the D.C. area where I grew up were always fun places to go, not to mention the extraordinary, authentic food one could eat!

But the people living in China Town and Little Italy were not at all interested in changing America- the broader America- into a Buddhist or Catholic nation. I can remember when JFK ran for President the fear was that the Vatican would somehow rule our nation. But Kennedy wasn't interested in that any more than the people of China Town were interested in a Buddhist country.

Unfortunately, we have people within the Islamic community who want a Caliphate and want America to become Islamic. There's no separation of religion and state in that instance and this Mosque, far from building a bridge, could easily raise the divide between Muslim and non-Muslim even more. Remember: though nineteen hijackers were killed on that day, some Muslims saw 911 as a success and this Mosque as their “trophy.”

Historical Precedence: De-Christianization of America
Many Muslims throughout the world believe that we in the West already have a Caliphate- a Christian Caliphate. They believe that “West” and “Christian” are synonymous. They're wrong, of course. Our system, while predicated on Biblical law to a certain degree, is not totally reliant on the Bible nor Christianity for it's basic. America in particular is a combination between British Common Law, Scriptural concepts of separation and individual liberty, and Roman design.

Most Islamic countries, on the other hand, have a mixture of secular law combined with what is called Sharia law. Sharia law is based on the Quran, the Islamic holy book, in conjunction with the Hadeeth and the Sunna, the deeds and sayings of Muhammad.

According to a 2007 University of Maryland poll, 71% of respondents polled from Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan and Indonesia believed that a “strict form of Sharia” should be in place in EVERY Islamic country. All Islamic countries have some element of Sharia written within their legal code. Usually it's seen in banking law and family code. But it can also be incorporated into criminal code as well.

The problem isn't that Muslims want Sharia in their own country. The problem is that some Muslims see the “crusader influence”, or the Christian Caliphate encroaching on the world and they feel they're at war with it.

As far back as the 1950's Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian author, educator, and early founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, claimed that America was the great Shaitan (Satan) and was upset by things he saw, from his Islamic perspective, as an affront to Allah. In his book, “The America I Have Seen”, Qutb castigates the American culture for it's materialism (shame on us for mowing our lawns!).

Qutb lived in a very conservative area of Colorado during his time here in the late 1950's. Yet he saw things he claimed shocked him. Poor haircuts on men, violent boxing matches, an obsession with sports, restrictive divorce law (back then one had to prove a reason for seeking divorce), and what he called the “animal like mixing of the sexes.”

Just like Islamic critics of America today, Qutb honed in on the women:

“...the American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs — and she shows all this and does not hide it.”

Obviously this guy never shopped at WalMart.

Painting some as all has always been a downfall for the critic of American morals. Be that as it may, Qutb's views are still shared in the Middle East today and seen as a threat to the Islamic way of life. The solution? An Islamic Caliphate.

The word Caliphate comes from the root word Khilafa, and refers to the first system of governance established in Islam. Caliphates came about as countries were captured and placed under Islamic leadership. I don't have time to go into the details, but suffice it to say there are those today who want to see the reinstatement of the glory days of Islam when there was a Caliphate. There's even a website devoted to the possibility of a Caliphate (http://www.caliphate.eu).

The above group argues that the Caliphate they propose is not the frightening thing imagined by western rulers and doesn't resemble any of the current Islamic based governments. Terms such as dhimmie are defined as to make it seem almost honorable to have to pay a tax in order to worship in one's own faith.

Some will argue that, even if there is a concerted effort to create a global Caliphate, it's impossible to do simply because the sects of Islam do not cooperate fully with one another. But as Christopher Farmer wrote in 2006 for the OPORD Analytical:

“......media’s pending claims that the global Caliphate system cannot exist because Islamic faiths do not cooperate is fallacy. The nation-state of Iran, for example, regularly supports and conducts business with the Sunni Baathist dominated nation-state of Syria. The nation-state of Syria regularly allows Iranian military cargo flights into the country to deliver military ordnance and other supplies to Iran’s proxy Hezbollah army in Lebanon. Iranian military advisors and other personnel frequently travel to Lebanon to assist Hezbollah in military planning operations and war preparations in the Bekka Valley. This type of Islamic cooperation between the different faiths of Islam is becoming more prevalent around the world specifically because Islam is in fact unifying and does seek a global Caliphate system.”

So how does this link into the NY Mosque situation?

At the present time, symbolically.

Throughout the history of Islam, whenever there was a take over of lands, and Islamic law became the rule, a Mosque was erected. The Ka'aba, where Muslims go to perform their pilgrimage or the Hajj, was once a pagan site until Muhammad conquered it in 630 C.E. and turned it into an Islamic holy site. The Al Aqsa Mosque was purposely erected near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as a symbol of Islamic conquest from both Jewish and Christian inhabitants (Al Aqsa over-shadows the Church of St. Mary). The Ummayad mosque in Damascus was built on the site of the Church of Saint John and so forth.

The taking down of the Trade Towers wasn't arbitrary. Just as the Pentagon was symbolic of the military might of our nation; just as the Capitol/White House (thought to be the targets of flight 93) symbolized our leadership; the WTC represented the seat of, not only American wealth, but world wealth and industry. In order to have a Caliphate, all three had to go.

The Pentagon was not torched up in flames and continues to stand today. Same for the White House and the Capitol. But the towers came down- the goal to at least symbolically take down Americas economic power was achieved.

It's no coincidence that the name chosen was Cordoba. Cordoba is where Islam established it's first Caliphate in Europe, replacing a Visigoth Church. Over the years, the Mosque was expanded and included a 111 foot high minaret.

Why call their “initiative” after a point in time of Islamic take-over, a Caliphate, and the over-shadowing of a Christian church? Hardly seems friendly.

Some argue, including Cordoba Initiative founder, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, that it's all about the love. That the purpose is to build a bridge, and an ecumenical one at that. I cannot see how naming their initiative after a period of time when Muslims built a Mosque right over a church can do anything but alienate the Christians of NYC, let alone, Christians nationwide.

But keep in mind, there's a belief among Muslims that America is synonymous with Christian.

Writing in 2009 for the Huffington Post, Feisal said the following, citing Obama's statements in Egypt:

“America may not be a Christian nation. But America is a nation built on the best of Christian values: Christians believe in love of God and love of neighbor: the two greatest commandments according to Jesus. Christian values include being compassionate, helping the poor, and in building a society that is religious and multi- religious. These are values Muslims share with Jews and Christians. This is the core of what we all believe; this is America's strength and is what makes America great.”

Again, I ask: if he has so much respect for Christianity, why name his project the Cordoba Initiative? I sense some duplicity on the part of Mr. Feisal. One cannot tout and laud the goodness of Christianity and then name one's pet project after a part in history resembling it's downfall and denial of religious practice.

Wouldn't something like “The Interfaith Educational Center” have been more indicative of a desire to build bridges and mend fences? But maybe it's not named that for a good reason: Islam doesn't allow for participation in an “interfaith” movement.

In an editorial written in a small publication “IQRA”, the editor asks if it's possible for Muslims to participate in an interfaith movement:

“Should Muslims get involved in the 'Interfaith Movement”? The answer is most certainly not. Allah...has ordained only one religion for humanity and all other creations around us...With Allah there is only one religion.” [Maulana Sayyid Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi]

He goes on to make the claim that the interfaith movement, particularly on campuses, is about trying to convert Muslims out of Islam, or at least have doubts instilled:

“Have you wondered why almost all 'secular' institutions of higher learning who can financially afford it and many non-Muslim theological institutions are active supporters of the 'Interfaith Movement'? They have changed their modus operandi a bit but the aim is the same. If Muslims cannot be converted outright to secularism and paganism at least they should start having doubts about the validity of the Qur'an”.

In another publication by IQRA, another editorial rejects the notion of Christians, Jews and Muslims banding together politically:

“Muslims should consider well their actions as we attempt to implement Islam in this country. Jews and Christians have rejected both the guidance of Allâh and His admonitions to them that they return to the path of divine guidance.”

Muslim author, Maryam Jameelah decried what she sees as Christian “Secularism” within the United States and notes a clear distinction between Christianity's ability to exist within a secular framework and Islam's unwillingness to do so:

“The acceptance of secularism on principle is the unbridgeable gulf, which separates Christianity from Islam. By secularism is meant the philosophy, which assumes religious faith to claim jurisdiction over only fragmentary segments of human life and specifically excludes it from any decisive influence over affairs of collective concern. Secularism, which restricts religion as a purely private individual matter, is the foundation of modern Western civilization and the source of nearly every deviation of Christian from Islamic doctrine”.

So if secularism is bad, and interfaith cooperation is wrong, then what the hell is Faisel doing?

Given that there are passages from the Quran itself which prohibit and inhibit both secularism and interfaith cooperation (Suras 16:125; 22:67; 28:87; 3:83; 13:15; 41:113:85; etc.) it seems disingenuous to declare that the purpose behind the Cordoba Initiative is to build bridges.

Good for the Goose?
So here sits the proposal for an Islamic Center/Mosque at Ground Zero. The claim is that they want to heal a divide between Muslims and non-Muslims and yet, the symbolism of it, right down to the name Cordoba, seems to indicate otherwise.

I believe that the Cordoba Initiative has a two-fold purpose. One symbolic (and maybe even subconscious, though I doubt it) and the other, overt and in our collective faces.

The symbolic is seen in the name Cordoba, the location, and in the planned completion date of 2011, ten years after the destruction of two American icons of freedom and capitalism, which is opposed by Islamists.

The overt purpose is to spread Islam itself. Approval for the building of a pro-Islamic structure at Ground Zero by the city may be interpreted as a healing and tolerant extension by starry-eyed liberals, but it's meaning within Islam is much more. It's the beginning of the Caliphate and a very wide opening for the dissemination of Islam.

Prior to 911, very few Americans were aware of Islam. One seldom saw the hijjab (head covering) worn by women outside of large cities. Less seen was the niqqab. Some Muslim men wore the Middle Eastern attire, but it was considered a “Saudi” thing and very few wore what little kids might call “their pajamas” in public.

Islamic centers aren't there solely for the purpose of educating Muslims. They're “visitors centers” for Islam. And for someone like Daisy Khan (relative of Genghis?) this is no doubt the ultimate Islamic outreach opportunity. Khan, who sits on the board of the Cordoba Initiative, is the same Daisy Khan who clearly stated in an NPR interview regarding polygamy said:

"I also explain to them that as a woman, you have certain rights, and as a man, he may one day exercise his right to have a second wife...And usually the man says, 'No, no, no. I'm never going to do that.' And I say, 'Well, in case you ever get tempted, how about we put that in the contract...'"

Last time I checked, polygamy was illegal in all fifty states. Ms. Khan seems to think it's perfectly acceptable to have a marriage contract which encourages breaking the law.

Not only is Khan open to the possibility of Muslim men entering into polygamy, she also seems to have problems with people exercising their right to determine their own religious future. In an op-ed she wrote in the Washington Post (2008) regarding the Pope's decision to baptize a convert to Catholicism, Magdi Allam's baptism was seen by Khan as an inconsiderate act:

“Pope Benedict’s choice to publicly baptize the Egyptian-born Muslim Magdi Allam at the Vatican was a regrettable one for Muslim-Catholic relations. While it cannot be considered a hostile act, it was inconsiderate, unnecessary, and ultimately harmful”.

She went on to say that it wasn't the embracing of Allam's choice to become Catholic which bothered her as much as it was that, in publicly baptising Allam, the Pope was doing nothing to heal relationships between Catholics and Muslims. This is because Allam's “..incendiary views of Islam.”

So, what about the incendiary views of America and Christianity which brought down the WTC? Isn't this Islamic Center/Mosque doing the same thing? Isn't it also a slap in the face as surely as the baptism of Allam is to Muslims?

Conclusion.
I'm sure that this is going to get me labeled an “Islamophobe” but I really don't care. Had it been Christians who pulled a 9-11 I would say the same thing: building a church so close to ground zero is unconscionable and in poor taste. And it's not too late for those in charge to change direction. They could easily make it a sectarian 9-11 Museum and get others, from around the world, to contribute to the memory of those who died that day.

Some of the things I would like to see in the museum would include:

-Images from media and private sources
-A pictorial timeline
-Mementos salvaged
-A list of names of all who died, along with ethnicity, gender, race, religion and disability,to demonstrate the universality of the attack
-A walk-through explanation as to why the Towers came down, so as to dispel the conspiracy myths
-How about some encased, handwritten apologies from the Islamic countries where the attackers hailed from?
-Inspirational mini-memorials from family members
-Showings of the movies Flight 93 and World Trade Center
-The various “well wishes” from world leaders, either recorded or in print
-Film footage from around the world expressing sympathy and solidarity with American
-Film footage showing the rejoicing of those who support terrorism, like the scenes from the Palestinian territory where they cheered and handed out sweets in celebration.

Included with this should be a sign: STOP THE HATE.

I'm dreaming, I know. They'll never do something this humane nor risky because it doesn't promote Islam. And this is the rub of it all. The very system from whence cometh the deadliest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor is being honored at the very arena where the attackers first struck.

Thank goodness the Japanese have had the sense not to try and erect an Emperor Shrine at Pearl Harbor. At least they understand the meaning of sense. The attack on Pearl was not considered a victory nor an honorable act by the Japanese, mainly because their rules of engagement required notifying the enemy to give the enemy a chance for self-defense. The messages got through two hours after the attack.

Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts never even tried.

So now here we are, watching as the history repeats itself in the form of Cordoba, this time in New York City instead of Spain. I hope those who supported the construction of this Islamic center are ready for the crock to eat them, because it's going to happen. You can only appease for so long before it feasts on you.

A recent report of the Census Bureau notes that minorities are on a trajectory to become the majority. According to numbers, at the year ending July 1, 2009, minority groups (blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc.) accounted for 48.5% of all live births whereas non-minority groups accounted for 51.4% of all live births, down from 55% in previous years.

What does this mean for the US? If trends continue it could mean that a dramatic shift may occur in how “minority” is defined, at least in racial terms. With 17.6% of those births being to black families and 25.8% being to Hispanic families, could it be that Hispanics will take over the minority groups in the US? And if so, how will this affect policy,if at all?

In 2004 it was estimated that there were some 41.3 million Latinos in the United States. Of that population, 23% self-identified as Protestant or “other” non-Catholic denominations (this included Jehovah's Witness and Mormon); but still the majority of Latinos identified themselves (70%) as Catholic.

This, along with the majority of blacks identifying as Christian, could represent the two groups who maintain a Christian majority in America for the future. No longer will we be a nation of “WASPs” (white anglo-saxon, protestant, Americans). Instead we could easily become a nation of HALPACAs (Hispanic And Latino Protestant And Catholic Americans).

In a 1999 article in Civil Rights Journal, Farai Chideya almost prophetically stated that by the year 2050, whites would become the minority. If current trends continue, this could easily come to fruition.

Chideya cites older data to make the point. In 1950, 85% of America was white and the majority, Christian, predominantly Protestant. By 1999, that number had dropped to 73% and today, it's down to 51.4%. Having dropped nearly 4% in less than five years, this would seem to indicate that the reversal of minority status could come easily within the 2050 prediction.

So what then? If or when whites become the minority, will laws be changed to embrace whites AS a minority? Or is defining “minority” a matter of population numbers only?

It could be argued that “minority” is defined by income and employment or position rather than by the over-all numbers. For example, while people of color may make up the majority in a broad population, some would argue that their absence of representation in particular fields or financial levels still places these groups in the category of “minority.”

A prime example of why we may need to do away with the current definitions of minority status could best be seen in the Arizona situation. The people of Arizona voted to place in law legislation which mirrors that of the national law regarding immigration, specifically, illegal immigration.

Opponents are trying to paint this as “racist.”

But is it?

In 2008, the population breakdown by race showed that 86.5% of Arizonans were classified as “white”. Of these, 58.4% were non-Hispanic and 30.1% were Hispanic. There's every reason to believe that this divide has shrunken rather than grown. But using the 2008 data, and given that 73% of Arizonans supported the Immigration reform law, this would mean that at least some of the Hispanic population favored the law.

There is a very real concern that the influx of illegals from Mexico, along with rising birth rate, means that there will be a shift in power in the US, in particular, political power. Contrary to what Democrats may think, however, this could shift politics more towards the right than the left. Hispanic populations tend to be more family oriented; less prone to encourage matriarchy; and more likely to view things like abortion and homosexuality as being wrong and a detriment to their social group.

What this could mean is that whichever group appeals more to the heart of the Hispanic population – the family – is likely the party which will garner the support of that community. It's not just about immigration, for many Hispanics, it's the whole package.

In other words, appealing to the Hispanic community using illegal immigration as center stage on the platform could ultimately backfire for Democrats who are, at the present time, playing the role of appeaser.

Ultimately our society will have to face the change, even if for now a narrow margin keeps whites in the “majority.” Just how we will address it, and if whites will have to have a fight for their own “civil rights” in the future is yet to be seen. But wouldn't that be an oddity if the world flip flopped?

Christian Terrorism: Is It Possible for a Christian to be a Terrorist?
Rosie O'Donnell, that bastion of intelligentsia said it openly in the wake of 9-11:

"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have a separation of church and state. We're a democracy here."

Yes, we all must be on our guard against those Christian terrorists trying to blow up buildings as they yell “Jesus Ackbar!”

It sounds silly, but there are actually people who justify the events of 9-11 by trying to compare Christians who do bad, even evil deeds, to a Muslim who practices Jihad.

So let's take a look at the two shall we? And maybe we can come to some better, less childlike conclusions.

What is a Christian
To begin with, we have to get a clear definition of what a Christian is or is not. A Christian, by definition, is a follower of Christ. The word was a derogatory term, first used in Antioch, to label those who converted to becoming “Christ followers.” The reason it was considered derogatory was because the word meant “little Christ”, often said with a sneer or a snarl, much as one might call a grown man “little man.”

What makes a Christian a Christian, by definition, is their faith and body of doctrine. First is the profession of faith with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, usually followed by a Believers' baptism. And while denominations may vary as to when these things occur and in which order, there's still the ultimate confession and the desire to “be like Christ.”

For several years there were bracelets floating around which sported the letters WWJD, or What Would Jesus Do. For most people, it was a fad that could be fun for some and annoying for the non-Christian. But overall, it did force the conversation: what WOULD Jesus do?

A Christian, a follower of Christ, knows we're told to obey the laws of the land as long as said law doesn't cause us to personally do that which is repugnant to God. For example: where the law of the land allows abortion, we can verbalize against it; protest peacefully; and even petition the courts for legal changes.

What we cannot do, is take the law into our own hands. Only- and I do mean ONLY- if the law required the Christian woman to get a forced abortion does she have the right to take whatever action is necessary to protect her unborn child. And that likely would not entail shooting an abortion doctor.

So a Christian is one who is required, in their own book, to respect the laws of the land. Does that mean all Christians do? Some don't. The man who shot George Tiller clearly didn't and he is condemned for it. But there is a UNIVERSAL body of teaching, even within the staunchly prolife Catholic church which teaches against “eye for an eye”.

In the shooters mind, however, it wasn't about an “eye for an eye.” Scott Roeder, however twisted he may seem, had a reason which made sense to him and, if you think about it, doesn't have to be a “Christian” idea:
"Because of the fact pre-born children's lives were in imminent danger, this was the action I chose."

Roeder was correct. The lives of unborn children were in imminent danger from Dr. Tiller, since he performed only abortions. No, it doesn't give Roeder the right to kill Dr. Tiller. But Roeder wouldn't have to be a “Christian” to draw his conclusion. ANY Prolife person could easily draw the same conclusion, be they Jewish, Atheist, or Buddhist.

The problem was in Roeders' decision on how to react to the problem. There's a laundry list of things he could have done- and should have done- including getting good counseling for his building anger at Tiller.
Had he received some good, New Testament counseling, it's highly unlikely Tiller would be dead today:

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Romans 12:19
“Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?'” Matthew 26:52-54

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Romans 13:1-14

“Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil.” Ephesians 4:26-27

The God of Christianity, Jesus Christ, clearly taught his followers a way of peace, and that it's not our place to carry out our own vengeance on others.

What Is A Muslim?
By definition, a Muslim is a person who surrenders to Allah. Many people will argue that Islam does not teach these violent acts which have been going on, around the world, since the 1970's. And it makes sense to say that most Muslims are not performing these acts. But there seems very little doubt that there's enough violence encouraged by Allah in the Koran to argue that it could easier to misinterpret the Koran than to misinterpret the New Testament.

To understand the problem of why it is many Muslims do not accept terrorism while others do, one has to understand the writing of the Koran and it's timeline division. The first period, known as the Meccan period, was written at a time when Islam was new, when Mohammed had little, if any, power. And when they were trying to accumulate new converts.

During this time, the early Sura's (verses) entreated the Muslim to ask “the people of the book” (Jews and Christians) about matters of faith. This was a period of tolerance on the part of Mohammed and his followers; a time when Jihad was a personal struggle for greater spirituality and to be more pleasing to Allah.

The Medina period, which came after the rejection of Islam by Jews and Christians, was not as nice a period. By this time, Mohammed had amassed a rather large following and had made some in-roads into the cultures around him.

It was during the time in Medina, when Mohammed and his followers were experiencing starvation, that they began raiding caravans. This didn't go over so well with the locals- as one can imagine. Passages written during the Medina period tend to be more violent, less tolerant, and generally more full of edicts to do acts of violence against the “enemies” of Allah.
The above is by no means detailed, but it provides a general backdrop and explains why some (a sizable hunk) of Muslims read into the Q'ran to commit acts of terror: it's hard to tell which period is which (unless one has a Q'ran that breaks it down) and unless one discounts the passages which command the Muslim to attack non-Muslims.

The below verses come from the Q'ran and are often cited by those who promote acts of terrorism:

Quran 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

Quran 9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's cause; they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."

Quran 8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."

Quran 8:65 "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding."

Quran 9:38 "Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah's Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place."

Quran 47:4 "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives.

Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."

"Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Sura 48.29)

"If you do not go to war, He will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men." (Sura 9.39)

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9.73)

All of the above verses were written during the Medina period. One could say this shouldn't matter. But it does, and mainly because of the principle of substitution:

“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?” (Sura 2:106)

It's very important to note that this passage was written during the Medina period, which means the passage was later and explanatory. Basically it's saying that anything written during the Meccan period and which deals with a specific issue is null and that this new revelation given at the Medina period takes it's place.

Encouraging Terrorism?
In order to support the idea that Christians are terrorists, or that their book condones terrorism in any way, one has to find passages within the New Testament which condone acts of terrorism. The fact is, there are no such passages in the New Testament texts.

A Christian isn't following their God, Jesus, when they break the law by imbibing in what can be taken as a terrorist act. Certain passages have been cited by Christianity's detractors as “evidence” that Christ encouraged terrorism.

Two passages in the New Testament which are use are found in Luke chapter nineteen and Matthew chapter ten:

“I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:26-27)

Unfortunately, most detractors of Christianity seldom read the bible. When one turns to Luke 19, one finds Christ telling a parable (a story with a message) about a wealthy land owner. Within the context of the parable, Christ is telling his audience what the landowner said. This is not a case of Christ telling His audience to bring his enemies to Him and slay them.

"Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35).

Again, the passage isn't advocating violence. Please note that it doesn't say to use a sword to slay your family. The fact that Christ says that He, Christ, was “sent to set” families against one another is indicative of this not having anything to do with killing people.

If one reads the passage in the context of a chapter, one finds that Christ isn't talking about a sword of violence, rather, a sword of division in the context of faithfulness to Him and His message. The division, we're told, is a natural outcome of rejecting the religion of one's birth to follow Christ.
If you don't believe this happens, talk to Abdul Rahman who, in 2006, became internationally known when an Afghani court sentenced him to death because he converted from Islam to Christianity. And he isn't alone, either.

As a convert to Christianity myself, when I left the religion of my birth it wasn't well received. When I became a born again Christian, I experienced familial shunning as well as the shunning of people who had been close friends. A natural outcome of a decision to follow Christ and yes, he warned that this could happen.

So you ask, what has all of this to do with terrorism? Could you please name any instance in modern history where a person who rejected Christianity was ever given the death penalty for so doing? Can you point to any passage in the New Testament which says to kill those who reject Christ?

Conclusion:
Islam certainly has the potential for breeding terrorists, if for no other fact that their holy book doesn't impose contextural limits in those passages talking about slaying the infidel. The New Testament does not.
Would a Christian (a genuine follower of Christ) resort to terrorist acts in order to obtain a desired goal?

“Christian terrorist” is an oxymoron. The Christian is to attempt to be a peacemaker. They're also to follow the law of the land (which omits terrorist acts as a means of dealing with issues.) Also:

"Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath" (Romans 12:19).

"It is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord." (Romans 12:19).

"It is mine to avenge; I will repay" (Hebrews 10:30)

"Overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21)

"He who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law" (Romans 13:8)

Comparing these passages- known by nearly all Christians- with the passages from the Koran on how to deal with enemies (in particular the Medina period, which supplanted the more peaceful Meccan period).

Is this to say ALL Muslims favor terrorism? No. Clearly that isn't the case.
But what is clear is that, if one compares the books, a person is far less likely to become a terrorist as a Christian than if they're Muslim, especially if they do a literal reading of their scriptures.

Christian terrorist? An oxymoron. Islamic terrorist? Well, there's a reason why the Taliban, Al Queda, The Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamic terrorist groups exist and kill without reservation. Maybe it's because their source book makes it manditory.

opening note:
I want to begin by saying that this was an extremely difficult piece to write and it may still need some perfecting. What prompted the research began several years ago, with a Vanity Fair article about this issue. The current showing of THE WARLORD'S TUNE in Australia prompted me to actually put this information out there in a way which would make it more easily accessible to those from paltalk who read this blog.

The Bacha Bareesh:
Pederasty In Islamic Traditions

If you knew nothing about the culture and the religion in which it's set, you would think the movie THE KITE RUNNER was simply a movie about a friendship gone bad and how life recycles itself.

But it was actually more than that. The movie also explored some of the cultural attitudes which have their basis in Islamic teaching, such as a “master” sleeping with his servant's wife and the bacha bareesh.

And this is where we get a shy glimpse of a practice which is only now being disclosed to the public.

=What is the Bacha Bareesh=
Bacha Bareesh is also referred to as “boy play” and takes young boys, usually pre-pubescent, and forces them into a life which most of us would find disgusting. The Bacha Bazi, “beardless boys”, are common in Afghanistan, but not found only there. The practice can also be found in other Islamic countries, such as Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia.

The life of the Bacha Bazi is not one of glamour. Sold by family or taken by kidnapping or from the streets, the boys usually begin their life as a Bacha Bazi between the ages of ten and twelve, seldom older. They are fed, clothed, and trained in music and dance. But not just dance. They're trained to be specifically seductive.

Dressed in women's clothing, with bells tied on their wrists and ankles, the boys are primped and made up. They are then taken to a party- usually open only to invited guests- where they dance. During the dance, grown men watch while musicians play. It doesn't take long for the boy to realize that he needs to be as flirtatious as possible in his dance. And it also doesn't take long for the boy to realize that the dancing is only part of the evening's events.

Many of the details are omitted from the various expose` stories and videos. For example, how do they handle the problem of these young boys being sexually abused? Apparently- they don't. It's simply accepted. And, as most child psychologists will tell you, if you get a child when they're very young and train them that obedience results in getting necessities like food and clothing, the odds are the child will cooperate and maybe even come to believe it's “normal.”

But what exactly is this all about? Is it a cultural aberration? Or is it entrenched in Islam as a part of the faith itself?

Pederasty and Homosexuality in the Islamic Ideology
Islamic teaching is clearly condemning of homosexuality. Passages in the Quran, the holy book of Islam, replays the story of Sodom and Gomorrah of the Bible, paraphrasing Lot:

“And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! Ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.” (Sura 7:80-81)1

In recent years there have been news stories about homosexual men being hung and the President of Iran has gone so far as to deny there are any homosexuals in Iran.

What we in the West might consider homosexual “behavior” however, is not considered homosexual behavior in Islamic cultures. Middle Eastern cultures have always viewed the interaction of men, from men dancing together (apart from women) to men holding hands and even a kiss on the lips between grown men, as normal interactions without any hint of sexual arousal.

Pederasty is a Greek term first coined by the poet-philosophers, literally means “lover of boys” or, more precisely, it's defined as “one who practices anal intercourse, especially with a boy.”

First thought would be: isn't that homosexual? Behaviorally and clinically, yes. It is. But sociologically the pederast may not view himself as a homosexual. This is predictably so in the case of societies where homosexuality is considered anathema between consenting males and where women are not considered a tilth (Sura 2:223)2, or for “breeding purposes” only.

While the mentioned Sura allows men to use any position when having intercourse with their wives, according to Islamic law, anal sex is not allowed between husband and wife. A fatwah, or religious ruling, explains:

"Whoever approaches [in sex] a menstruating woman or a woman in her anus … has disbelieved in what came down upon Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him)" (At-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and Ahmad).

“The Prophet also said to `Umar ibn Al-Khattab, '[You are free to] go from the front and the back, but avoid the anus and menses' (At–Tirmidhi and Ahmad).”

In case there is any doubt that Islam considers anal sex with a wife to be a major sin:

“...we would like to stress that anal intercourse with one's wife is a major sin, whether it occurs at the time of menstruation or not. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon Him) cursed the one who does this. He is reported to have said, 'Cursed is the one who approaches his wife in her rectum.' (Reported by Imam Ahmad, 2/479)”

One has to stop at this juncture and ask: why the specificity? Most males know well enough that the vagina is the appropriate place for heterosexual intercourse. Not that heterosexuals never engage in anal intercourse, indeed some may. But this seems to indicate a propensity to want that particular type of intercourse and apparently Islam forbids men from practicing it on women, in particular the wife, with whom he is expected to bear children.

In Islamic pederasty, however, the boy isn't seen as a “boy” per se. Islamic culture doesn't see the boys as men, rather, as being the same as women because they lack the sign of manhood: a beard.

An Kabylie writer on the issue says:

“Islam considers boys and women as the same gender hence a woman is considered a minor all her life in Islam. However, the feminine status of a boy is temporary as it ends with the growing of a beard. A beard is the symbol of manhood and virility in Islam and many who could not grow beards are treated as less than men and often abused sexually if the opportunity arises. Islam does not consider it as rape or sexual abuse but rather as a mere play...”

In fact, the term “play” is applied when law is used when the situation is discussed by Bukhari* referencing the limitations of marriage:

“As for whom ever plays with a boy: if there is full penetration, then he shall not marry his mother”. [Bukhari LXII, 25]**

It is very important to realize that sex with young boys in concert with a man's relationship to women is very exclusive. A man in Islam can view himself as heterosexual, and participate in sex with young boys, as long as the boys in question are not among family members.

According to the al-Islam website, under the heading “Islamic Laws” we find a legal ruling:

“If a baligh person commits sodomy with a boy, the mother, sister and daughter of the boy become haraam for him. And the same law applies when the person on whom sodomy is committed is an adult male, or whom the person committing sodomy is na-baligh. But if one suspects or doubts whether penetration occurred or not, then the said woman would not become haraam.”3

Some could argue that this is not an endorsement of pederasty. And maybe they have a valid point in thus saying. But the problem is, this offers no condemnation of the activity, rather, places mere restrictions on who may marry whom after the fact.

Khaled El-Youayheb notes that:

“The passive male sodomite was seen as being in possession of a female sex drive, but without any of the constraints imposed in patriarchal, gender-segregated society...”4

Because menses (courses) is what defines womanhood in Islamic thought, as opposed to chronological age, there is a tendency in Islam to group boys, women and girls together until such time as the split occurs and a girl becomes a woman and a boy, once he begins sprouting facial hair (not peach fuzz) becomes a man.

El-Rouayheb also notes that this attitude is inexorably tied to the social structure of segregating the genders. And Asud Abu Khalil notes that this gender division has a basis in Sharia:***

“The rise of segregation [of genders] needs come after the birth of the new religion (Islam) when male friends of the Prophet like 'Umar ibn al-Khattab were urging Muhammad to isolate his wives from male companions. Only then did revelation come to Muhammad, which in effect established the basis for social segregation between males and females.” 5

Strict separations of the gender is both a reference to physical proximity as well as legal and spiritual. In terms of gender definitions, there are only two genders: male and female. Again, since signs of puberty are the evidence of manhood (a beard sprouting) then it makes sense that young boys would likely be classified as among the feminine.

Is this to say all Muslim males see their sons as being “women?” No. Certainly not. But there seems to be a phenomenon, particularly in the Middle Eastern countries and Muslim Africa, which lends itself to the problem of pederasty. And while it's true that there are pederasts in all countries and cultures, I have yet to find a religious body which elevates the practice past culture and into theology.

=Bacha Bareesh in Islamic History=
The Bacha Bareesh is nothing new to Islamic countries. The practice of pederasty dates back to the very days of Muhammad:

“According to one tradition, the Prophet Muhammad once ordered a handsome youth...to sit behind him, so that he (Muhammad) would not be able to look at him”.

In fact, Muhammad himself warned about attraction to beardless youth:

“Beware of beardless youth for they are a greater source of mischief than any maidens”. 6

Islamic jurists seem to have felt that the attraction to pre-pubescent boys was completely natural for men; while denial of such an attraction meant a man was a liar. +

Orientalists such as Richard F. Burton called pederasty “the Persian vice and spoke about the boy brothels in Persia, Afghanistan, Turkmanistan and Muslim India, referring to the boys as “catamites”++ Burton noted that these boys were:

“...prepared with extreme care by diet, baths, depilitation, unguents and a host of artists in cosmetics...” +++ In fact it was Burton who first mentioned to the world that the Afghanistan males had a phrase they used: “Women for breeding, boys for pleasure.”

English prisoner, Thomas Sherley, who was held captive by the Ottomans (1603-1605) in his “Discourse of the Turks” detailed what he observed as well:

“For their Sodommerye they use it soe publiquely and impudentlye as an honest Christian woulde shame to companye his wyffe as they do with their buggeringe boys.”

There apparently has long been a problem with adult males feeling a strong sexual attraction to young boys. Hanbalite jurist, Ibn al-Jawzi noted that anal sex (liwat) was proscribed and men were cautioned to be wary of an attraction to beautiful boys.

Another legal scholar, Sufyan al-Thawi goes even further:

“If every woman has one devil accompanying her, then a handsome lad has seventeen.” 7

An old Egyptian proverb reads: “In his father's home a boy's chastity is safe, but let him become a dervish [Sufi adept] and the buggers will queue up behind him.”

Pederasty is not merely a Shia phenomenon nor a Sunni one alone. Sufism has had its dealings with the practice as well. Orientalist Helmut Ritter noted that the Sufi adoration of young boys persisted in many Islamic countries. 8

Most of what we know of ancient pederasty among the orientals comes from art and literature, not only reports. Classic Persian poets often pined away for their “beardless boys” and wrote of this in poetry:

“My sweetheart is a beauty and a child,
And I fear that in play one day
He will kill me miserably and he will not be accountable according to the holy law.
I have a fourteen year old idol,
sweet and nimble,
For whom the full moon is a willing slave.
His sweet lips have still the scent of milk
Even though the demeanor of his dark eyes drips blood.” 9

Murray and Roscoe document observations by others who visited the Islamic world during the 19th and 20th centuries. Archaeologist Byron de Prorok reported that he observed:

“..an enthusiasm [that] could not have been approached even in Sodom... Every dancer had his boyfriend...chiefs had harems of boys...” 10

Murray and Roscoe also reported that novelist Robin Maugham, discussing the Siwan? men recalled a conversation with a Siwan merchant who explained that Siwan men will “kill each other for a boy. Never for a woman.”

Marriage was also a factor among the pederasts of the Middle East. Siwan customs (up unto the 1940's) restricted a man to but one boy at a time and required him to adhere to a stringent code of obligations. This often led to “marriage” between the man and his catamite. Egyptologist Georg Steindorff reported:

“The feast of marrying a boy was celebrated with a great pomp, the money paid for a boy sometimes amounted to fifteen pounds, while the money paid for a woman was a little over one pound...”

Pederasty became an addiction in some cases as well. Some men became so addicted that they couldn't bring themselves to settle with women. Such is the case with the Caliph Al-Amin who:

“...according to As-Siyuti in Tarikh Al-Khiafa simply 'rejected women and concubines'. He refused, despite the strenuous efforts of his concerned mother, to have sex with women. 'To cure her son from his passion for eunuchs the mother of the Caliph Amin smuggled among them several slender, handsome maids with short hair dressed up as boys in tight jackets and and girdles. Court circles and common-folk alike followed the fashion and similarly dressed up their slave-girls and called them ghulamiyyah.”11

=Bacha Bareesh in Islamic Teaching=
Islamic religious leaders have, in recent years, spoken out against making boys dance and have sex. The issue, of course, is how to define “force.” Is a boy being “forced” if he is poor and sees this as a means to support himself, and possibly his family? Is he being “forced” if he has been groomed from a very young age to accept it? In other words, is coercion the same as “force?”

All one needs to is look at Islamic teachings themselves to find out that bacha bareesh (bazi) is more than some mere tribal tradition or sexual aberration. It is an expectation in the afterlife as well.

In the Quranic depiction of heaven there's a passage which describes servants to the faithful. This Sura, called “Time” or “Man” was revealed to Muhammad in Mecca and holds,as the name implies, a promise for humans (in particular men). Descriptions include high couches, lack of excessive temperatures; fruit readily available; silver dishes and crystal goblets which will be filled by heavenly “attendants” or slaves. And this little additional heavenly reward:

“There serve them youths of everlasting youth, whom when thous seest, thou wouldst take for scattered pearls.”12

Another rendering reads like this:

“They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth; when you see them, they would seem like sprinkled pearls.” 13

The similar promise is made in Sura 56:

“They shall have jeweled couches reclining on them facing each other, and there shall wait on them the eternal youths with goblets, shining beakers and cups of pure wine, which will neither pain their heads nor take away their senses.14

The Tafsirs clarify that we aren't talking about young men here, nor even boys of a viable age:

“They will be waited on by immortal youths, resembling young boys, never aging.” I

“(There wait on them) for service (immortal youths) servants; it is also said that these are the children of the disbelievers who are made servants for the people of Paradise. Another way of reading this verse is (There wait on them youths, and they are immortal): i.e. they will never die nor leave the Garden.”II

It's my personal opinion that this is not simply about young male servants. This is about young boys who never age, which means they will never outgrow the baccha bareesh, or in other words, never have beards or become men. This is clarified in the Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

“(Immortal boys will go around them), who will never grow up, get old or change in shape,”14

Even more clear is the expository of Kathir regarding Sura 76:

“(And round about them will (serve) boys of everlasting youth. If you see them, you would think them scattered pearls.) meaning, young boys from the boys of Paradise will go around serving the people of Paradise.
(everlasting youth.) meaning, in one state forever which they will be never changing from, they will not increase in age. Those who have described them as wearing earings in their ears have only interpreted the meaning in such a way because a child is befitting of this description and not an adult man. Concerning Allah's statement,
(If you see them, you would think them scattered pearls.) meaning, when you see them dispersing to fulfill the needs of their masters, their great number, their beautiful faces, handsome colors, fine clothing and ornaments, you would think that they were scattered pearls. There is no better quality than this, nor is there anything nicer to look at than scattered pearls in a beautiful place. Allah says...”15

I suppose you could interpret this to mean that there will eternally be little boy slaves waiting in their masters general needs but the emphasis on their beauty and their timelessness (along with the mention of wearing earrings) would seem to be more readily applicable to a Baccha Bareesh scenario.

Did this include acts of sodomy? Exactly what kinds of sexual behavior are involved outside of kissing is unknown. However, it would seem that sodomy has always been involved and that, when pressed, Islamic jurists seem to have no compunction with arguing in favor of sodomy with the baccha bareesh:

“When jurists of the Hanafi school sought to defend their ruling that sodomy was not a subvariety of fornication (zina) and was therefore was not subject to the same punishment- one of the arguments to which they resorted was that the incitment to fornicate typically came from both parties, whereas the incitement to sodomy came from one party only” 16

This presents a subjugation of the boys rather than a mutual affair and sexual subjugation in the ancient cultures usually included forced vaginal intercourse on females (rape) or forced anal intercourse on males (male rape.) However, there is also indications that fellatio is also a form of sexual subjugation used on male captives during ancient times as well.

Baccha Bareesh have mentioned both acts being done, as well as “thighing” - or mufakhathat- a disgusting practice wherein there is no penetration but the aggressor still achieves climax from rubbing his penis between the boys legs. Islamists have debated the issue of thighing and some apologists deny it ever happened. This being said, Baccha Bareesh have reported this as one of the sex acts they've been asked to perform, especially as young boys.

Conclusion
It wasn't too many years ago that I sat talking with a friend, a giant of a man at 6'8” tall and over 300 pounds, as he told me of the sexual assault perpetrated on him by his teenage cousin. “Dan” was only eight when he was forcibly sodomized by his teenage second cousin who, once he was finished, handed him a dollar and said: “If you tell anyone I will tell them you told me I could do it if I paid you a dollar.”

Dan fell apart. As he sobbed he revealed to me that ever since that day he wondered if he was homosexual, in spite of his obvious attraction to females and his revulsion to most males.

“Maybe I was gay and didn't know it!”

I assured him that no, he would know if he had homosexual tendencies. And the so-called “rabid heterosexual” theory perpetrated by pop-psychology had about as much psychiatric validity as saying that Sybil was merely suffering from brain farts. The diagnosis doesn't fit the symptoms and minimizes the seriousness of the situation.

The crime of pederasty- and it is a crime- is more than an issue for “over there” in far off Afghanistan. It's a crime that has long term issues attached to it. For one thing, we're talking about young men who, when they get older, may decide to carry on the tradition, thus victimizing another generation.

We live in a mobile society now. No longer are these isolated acts performed in far-off cultures. While pedophilia (and by default, pederasty) remain crimes in the West, and to an extent, some of the Middle East as well, a growing concern should be the exportation of such behavior into the West as a strong possibility.

Groups like NAMBLA? (the North American Man Boy Love Association) have been trying to push their brand of “love” in the West for years. Debate remains among homosexual activist groups as to whether or not they want to embrace NAMBLA as representative of a “sexual minority” but, thus far, NAMBLA has not received much of a welcoming in Western society.

Islam may offer the one crack in the culture tent that groups like NAMBLA need: the religious rights crack.

Muslim activists are already flexing the religious rights issue in everything from whether or not they have to ring up a ham at a TARGET grocery store, to whether they can wear a Niqab for a drivers' license, all the way to issuing a fatwa against the use of the body scanners in airports.

And if a grown man brought his boy lover to the United States from Afghanistan? Then what? Already Canada has had to face the problem of Muslim men bringing female child brides within her borders.17 About all we could do is refuse to allow entry, as Canada has done. Thus leaving the children, again, at the mercy of predators who see nothing wrong in what they're doing.

It isn't enough to become aware of this problem. In Afghanistan we are waging war against “terrorism” while another terrorism goes on without discussion from leaders of the world's nations. In the recent tri-lateral discussions with the Presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan, Clinton discussed everything but human rights, let alone, the abuse of boys.

In 2008, a UN Envoy did denounce this atrocity.19 And several media outlets (as well as a large gaggle of great bloggers) have covered the issue. But the politicos hesitate to pinpoint it as a problem coming from within Islam itself. Instead, mainstream media and the powers that be would rather focus on the Roman Catholic church and give Islamists who practice this- and the Imams who abuse boys- a pass. Even though there is nothing in Roman Catholic teaching which makes the sexual abuse of young boys a tradition of the Church.

I believe it's time to hold all feet to the fire. Nobody should get a “pass”. And this includes the Islamists for whom this is a tradition, as well as a goal for their eternal bliss.

end notes
1 The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, An Explanatory Translation by Mohammad Marmaduke Pickthall, Penguin Publications, 1997. Unless otherwise noted, all quotes from the Quran will come from this edition.

2 Ibid, “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad). The word “tilth” by definition is a)cultivated land; and probably more applicable; b) the state of aggregation of soil especially in relation to its suitability for crop growth. Biologically applying this to females, a woman without menses is not capable (usually) of producing children- or reproduction. Once she obtains menses, she is to be “cultivated” as one would a field which is to be seeded for plant reproduction.

*Al-Bukhari is a reference to one of the six (6) canonical collections of (Sunni) Islam. The Hadith are the prophetic traditions, or sayings and deeds of founder if Islam, Muhammad as collected by Muslim scholar Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari throughout his adult lifetime (810-870 A.D.). Most Muslims (Sunni) believe this to be the most authoritative book after the Quran, by which all Hadith are weighed. A “weak” hadith would be one which conflicts with the Quran directly; a strong hadith is one which finds validity and support in the Quran. These are unlike the Hebrew Talmud which, though used at times for clarification and tradition, is more of a discussion of topics between ancient Rabbinic s as opposed to being a succinct clarification of Torah.

**“femen yeaebu biggabi in ad khalahu fihi fela yetezewwejenne oummahu”

3 It should be noted here that the source is from a SHIITE website. There are distinct differences between Sunni and Shiite sects. The word BALIGH in English is “mature” or “older.”

4 Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800, Khaled El-Rouayheb, pg 22.

***Sharia is that body of law which is ascribed to in Islam. All Sharia derives from the Quran, some derives from the Hadith and, in the case of the Sunni's, the Sunnah. Sunni Islam has four basic schools of Sharia: Hanafi (most liberal; frequently seen in Pakistan, Egypt and Central Asia); Maliki (mostly in North Africa); Shafi (Indonesia, Malaysia and Yemen); and Hanbali (most often seen in South Africa and in Taliban ruled regions.) The Shiite follow Jafari, seen mostly in Shia-dominated Iran.)

5 Gender Boundaries and Sexual Categories in the Arab World, Asad Abu Khalil, Feminist Issues, Spring, 1997, Vol 15 Issue 1&2, pp 91-104.
6 Interestingly, this is still cited today. A website for the Central Mosque (http://central-mosque.com) and (http://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/Homosexuality.htm) discusses the words of the Rassulallah (messenger of Allah, Muhammad) and what he had to say about sodomy.

+ Imam ibn al-Jawzi, who died in 1200 AD: “He who claims that he experiences no sexual desire when looking at beautiful young boys is a liar.”

++ Catamite word dating back to the 1500s, refers specifically to a young boy who is kept by a grown man for the purposes of sexual pleasure.

+++ Burton also reported: “The Afghans are commercial travelers on a large scale and each caravan is accompanied by a number of boys and lads almost in woman's attire with kohl'd eyes and rouged cheeks, long tresses and henna'd fingers and toes, riding luxuriously in kajawas or camel-panniers; they are called kuch-i safari or traveling wives, and the husbands trudge patiently by their sides.”

7 Re: see footnote #6.

8 Sufism, Sodomy and Satan: Sexual Dysfunction in Islamic Mystic Tradition, Aug. 13, 2008.

9 Hafez, Divan No. 284; many of these sonnets were written during a time when European contemporaries were writing sonnets to women.

10 Islamic Homosexualities, Stephen O Murray and Will Roscoe, NY University Press, 1997.

$ Egypt, the men of the Siwa Oasis of Africa is part of Berber Africa.
11 Gender Boundaries and Sexual Catagories in the Arab World, Asad Abu Khalil, ibid.

12 Pickthall, Sura 76.19, ibid

13 English Translation of the Meaning of Al-Qur'an by Muhammad Farooq-i-Azam Malik, 1997, the Institute of Islamic Knowledge, pg 690.

14 Ibid pg 602

I Al-Jalalayan

II Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs

14 http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=56&tid=51917

15 http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=76&tid=56473

16 Before Homosexuality, pg 22.

% NAMBLA uses many cultural and other resources to buttress their belief that pederasty is normal throughout history and the world. Recently they redesigned their website to reflect this view (see accompanying illustrative pdf file- PEDERASTY IN ISLAMIC ART). NAMBLA also appeals to the works of Islamic poets such as Nuwas: http://www.nambla.org/nuwas.htm

17 Muslim Child Brides on Rise
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/03/11/13201531.html
Toronto Sun, March 11, 2010.

18-19 UN Envoy denounces hidden abuse of Afghan boys, Reuters, July 2008 http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07430876.htm

If I had a list of the atheist leaders who committed sex crimes against children, it would make writing this a whole lot easier. Fortunately for atheists, they have no set leadership and, therefore, there is nobody to hold up as a bastion of hypocrisy. And then, when you add in the fact that atheism is neither systematic nor does it have a creed per se, it makes life easier for the atheists. Can't blame the system when there isn't one.

But for religions, there is a problem. They have a system. And that system can be attacked and called into question easily enough when the representative leadership, whether national, international or local, comes under fire.

Such is the case with the recent Roman Catholic scandal.

The question to be asked is: why is it only the Roman Catholic church which comes under fire when pedophilia is discussed? Are religious leaders within other groups somehow off limits?

I suppose the response could be that since the Roman Catholic church is the largest single religious entity in the world; and since it wields so much influence worldwide; then it's the example and therefore should be held to a higher standard. As a non-Catholic (whom, by the way, believes that Catholicism errs in many areas) I have to say that I disagree with this approach. I believe it is intrinsically wrong to point to the “big guy” and say that he has to be the example for all the world and, therefore, should come under more scrutiny than any other group. Especially if being “the biggest” doesn't necessarily make one “the best.”

That being said, let's look at pedophilia in other religious groups and see if this is a “Catholic thing” or perhaps a glance at the worst part of the human condition overall.

Rabbinic Pedophiles.
For several years a group calling itself “The Awareness Center” has been following and reporting on sexual abuse cases involving Rabbis and other religious leaders in Jewish communities around the world. The Awareness Center is an organization made up of Jews themselves, who have attempted to address the problem of pedophilia in its ranks via the International Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault (IJCASA) and they have successfully documented, and called for action against, over 200 cases where Rabbis have abused, or are alleged to abuse, minors.

Some of the cases involved child pornography, while others involved the actual physical molestation of boys or/and girls. To their credit, the Jewish community watch dog group tries to keep people informed. However, these stories seldom hit the media. At least, not with the fury that the ones about the Catholic church do.

Some of the cases are particularly disturbing:

Case of Rabbi Lewis Brenner
Convicted of child molestation. The original charges included 14 counts of sodomy, sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. He agreed to plead guilty to one count of sodomy in the third degree, a Class E felony, in exchange for a sentence of five years' probation.

Case of Rabbi Alan Jay "Shneur" Horowitz, MD
Rabbi Alan J. Horowitz, MD, (Convicted and sentenced to 10 - 20 years in prison for sodomizing a nine-year-old psychiatric patient. Allegedly, he has assaulted a string of children from California to Israel to New York in the past twenty years. Alan J. Horowitz is an Orthodox rabbi, magna cum laude, M.D., Ph.D. A graduate of Duke University, and was a writer for NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association).

Case of Rabbi Yehuda Kolko (AKA: Joel Kolko, Yudi Kolko) - Yeshiva Torah Temimah (New York, NY) (Arrested in New York City on December 7, 2006 following a long-term police investigation. He was charged with four counts of sexual abuse, including two felony counts, and endangering the welfare of a child. The most recent sexual abuse was allegedly against an 8-year-old boy, who says he was abused while he was in the first grade during the 2002-03 school year.Rabbi Yudi Kolko and Yeshiva Torah Temimah were hit with a $20 million civil lawsuit on May 5, 2006, accusing him of molesting two students more than 25 years ago. One of the alleged victims said Rabbi Yehuda Kolko, 60, sexually assaulted him when he was a seventh-grade student).

Just this month, a Rabbi in New York was convicted on eight counts of sexual abuse. Baruch Lebovits was found guilty of, among other things, luring a teenage boy into his car with the promise of letting the youth drive the car. While the young man was driving, the Rabbi performed oral sex on him.

There have been some news stories divulging the on-going problem of sexual abuse within Hassidic communities in particular. These stories often involve adult men who were abused as young boys and teens. The scene replays quite similar: a closed community which believes it's own law has priority over the laws of the state; rituals which leave a child open for abuse; and a secretiveness about bringing the problem out into the open as doing so could shake the faith of the devout.

For many of the victims of these Rabbis, justice comes too little too late- if it ever comes at all. Take the case of Rabbi Yehuda Kolko whose abuse of minor boys spanned from 1967 to his arrest in 2006. Passed along from one place to another- much as Priests have been passed around once allegations begin- the toll of Kolko's damage may never be fully disclosed since so many men never step up and report their sexual abuse.

Imams Not Immune
A 2005 story out of Pakistan highlighted the worlds AIDS day conference and the problem of “sodomy in the madrassas.” Dr. Liaquat Husain announced the issue to a room full of people waiting for wisdom to explain why and how the spread of AIDS had become so rampant:

"During a raid on a madrassa in Karachi, I caught a cleric red-handed, abusing a student sexually. An inquiry was ordered."

He went on to tell the group that in 2004, there were some 500 reported cases of sexual abuse in madrassas and that in 2003, there were in excess of 2,000 reported cases. Sadder still was the fact that there had been no successful prosecutions.

Mosques aren't places of immunity from sexual abuse either. A recent story about a Muslm father who simply wanted to ground his son in the Islamic faith by sending him to an overnight prayer time at a local mosque reported that his son was molested while there.

“Tampa police charged Yasser Mohamed Shahade, 35, with sexual battery. An Egyptian who arrived two months ago as the mosque's full-time imam, Shahade was held without bail at the Falkenburg Road Jail. The Sheriff's Office notified immigration officials of his arrest.”

Another case in 2009 involved a Bosnian Imam accused of molesting young girls:

“A court in central Bosnia sentenced an imam on Friday to 18 months in jail for sexually abusing a girl during religious classes, the first such conviction of a Muslim religious official in the Balkan country.”

In February 2010, an Imam was charged with raping three boys under the age of 13 and one count of raping a boy under the age of fifteen. Mohammed Hanif Khan Mohammed Hanif Khan is the profile imam at Tunstall's Capper Street Mosque.

There are other stories of sexual abuse at the hands of Imams as well. Though they haven't (to my knowledge) been accumulated into a concise form, there have been reports and these few make one wonder if there aren't more out there. Muslim leaders share this concern.

Protestantism Under Scrutiny as Well.
An Odessa, Texas, youth minister sits charged with the sexual abuse of a fifteen-year-old girl. A former Music Minister is arrested for sexually abusing young boys. A former Pastor is given six months in prison for the sexual assault he committed back in the 1970's.

A watchdog group calling itself “Stop Baptist Predators” focuses specifically on the crimes committed by Southern Baptist leaders. And they are equally critical of the Southern Baptist Conventions' unwillingness to create a national sex offenders' database to assist churches in hiring processes.

A counselor at a children's home for abused and neglected children stands accused of sexually abusing 13 and fourteen year old children.

WORCESTER, MA. A former pastor Andrew J. Bierkan, 54, at the First Congregational Church of Sutton who now heads a church in Ohio has been indicted here on charges of unnatural rape of a child and posing a child in a state of nudity. He is now pastor of St. Paul United Church of Christ in Cincinnati.

Just about every branch of Protestantism has had some level of scandal surrounding this issue. Baptist, Charismatic, Pentecostal, Methodist-- you name it. Interestingly enough, there seem to be some groups for whom this behavior is a marked rarity. Among them are the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists. A web search showed up only one reported case of allegations involving sexual abuse within an IFB, that of a mentally challenged woman- yet the police investigation came up short when it came to the issue of whether or not the church adequately protected her. Later reports would show that she had been sexually active in the group home where she lived, so it was impossible to determine whether or not any sexual activity took place on church properties even.

In another incident, it was alleged that adult workers at North Sharon Baptist Church in Michigan were taking youth aside and molesting them. Police determined there was insufficient evidence to even warrant a probe.
Both cases came on the heels of the McMartin daycare trial, which catapulted several day cares and churches into the limelight.

Another group which seem to not have pedophilia as a problem within the church leadership levels are the Mennonites. This isn't to say that either group have no problems, indeed, they suffer the same issues as other groups. But it would seem that accusations against clergy involving the sexual abuse of minors isn't as much of an issue within these denominations while Catholic and Protestant offshoots do seem to have problems with pedophiles in the leadership.

What Drives the Problem?
I suppose the simple answer would be to let priests get married. But since not all churches have priests who have taken a vow of celibacy, this hardly seems a satisfactory response, though for the Catholic clergy, it could be a major step in reforming the church's tarnished reputation and curbing the problem.

Perhaps to understand it better, we need to get into the mind of the pedophile. This is a scary place to be and would make for far too long of an article. Maybe by looking at religious groups where this isn't an uncomfortably common phenomenon, we can discern the steps to lessening- if not eradicating- the problem.

Those who would say the problem is “religion” often lose sight of the fact that pedophiles encroach in all areas of life. They're in schools. They're in the medical and dental offices. They're at the local day camp and the local youth hang out.

So while the world around us seems to take great delight in pointing the accusatory finger at the Catholic church- what I can say is that where all systems err is when they refuse to acknowledge the problem in their midst. Perhaps its time to stop reinforcing the delusion that it's only the “catholics” who have the problem. Being the biggest certainly doesn't make this kind of abuse worse than when it's committed by the smallest group.

Sources:
http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/clergyabuse.html
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/rabbi_baruch_lebovits_convic...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99913807
http://www.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/news_list/jt/sexual_mol...
http://www.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/news/jt/sexual_molestat...
http://www.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/news_list/jt/sexual_mol...
http://www.rabbichildabuse.com/

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?226312
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1002859.ece
http://www.javno.com/en-world/bosnian-imam-convicted-in-sex-abuse-case/2...
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Mosque-leaders-act-preserve-co...
http://www.1010wins.com/pages/2659889.php?
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=7220
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim-leaders-fear-thousands...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/1453786/Acid-att...
http://www.oaoa.com/news/weber-43917-sexual-odessa.html
http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2009/aug/28/choir-leader-admits-child...
http://www.topix.com/ca/moncton-area-nb/2010/02/ex-pastor-frederick-hans...
http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=84060

"I have to tell the world that if they do not defend us, then we have to defend ourselves with the only thing we have,
our bodies. Our bodies are the only fighting means at our disposal."
-Hiba, 28-year old, mother of five,
-Suicide Bomber Trainee

Women and Terrorism:
Jihad Jane Is Nothing New

She's in her early 40's, a convert to Islam, and under indictment for planning participation in a terrorist attack in Sweden. Her intended victim was Lars Vilks, the cartoonist who, in 2007, created a cartoon disparaging Mohammad

But “Jihad Jane” is not a new phenomenon. Women terrorists have appeared with greater frequency after 9-11 and with the utilization of “profiling” which normally focuses on young men of Middle Eastern decent between the ages of 19-29, we are seeing groups like Al Queda calling for the active recruitment and training of female jihadis.

In 2004 the Strategic Studies Institute published their findings about the issue of suicide bombing. Included in the paper was a discussion about the use of women as suicide bombers:

“Terrorist organizations use women as weapons because they provide:
• Tactical advantage: stealthier attack, element of surprise, hesitancy to search women, female
stereotype (e.g., nonviolent).
• Increased number of combatants.
• Increased publicity (greater publicity = larger number of recruits).
• Psychological effect.”

One of the commanders in charge of recruiting and training suicide bombers summarized:

“The body has become our most potent weapon. When we searched for new ways to resist the security complications facing us, we discovered that our women could be an advantage.”

In 2006, The Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution researched the issue of female terrorists from both a historical phenomenon as well as a current issue. They concluded that over 70% of terrorist acts over the past 75 years were performed by men, with slightly less than 20% being done by women. But they also noted that this has changed in recent years. That 20% figure is now closer to 40% (as of 2008).

In fact, the female terrorist- particularly in the form of a suicide bomber- has increased from eight instances in the 1980's total, to more than 100 since 2000. This doesn't include the statistical data coming from Israel, where there has been nearly a 70% increase in the number of female suicide bombings over the past twenty years.

Theories as to why this is happening abound. Some say it's the hopelessness that many Muslim women feel which compels them to these heinous acts. Others say there could be a mental illness peculiar to Muslim women which makes them more susceptible to being recruited.

But whatever the reason, U.S. authorities are more concerned than ever about this growing phenomenon.

And for some of us this has come very close to home. It wasn't too long ago that a female suicide bomber held an area near my house hostage as she threatened to blow herself, her male companion, and their vehicle, sky high. As it turned out, they had four explosive devices on them which had to be detonated.

A Historical Precedence.
Muslims will decry this activity saying it's “un-Islamic” for a woman to participate in jihad. Those using this argument are ill-informed about Islamic teaching.

There are three instances wherein a woman may actively participate in literal (not spiritual) Jihad:

1- If the enemy invades the lands of Muslims; in this case, it becomes obligatory on every one, male and female, to go out for Jihad and fight for the Cause of Allah.

2- If the Muslim leaders call upon the whole Muslim Ummah to perform Jihad; then it also becomes obligatory.

3- If the Muslim leader appoints certain women to do certain tasks such as monitoring the enemy, lying mines; in this case it becomes obligatory on women to carry out the duty entrusted to them.

A report by the Jamestown Foundation points out that female participation in battle isn't new. And some reports seem to indicate that it was a Christian Lebanese woman, Loula Abboud, who is attributed with the “model” of suicide bombing. In the 1980's Ms. Abboud led a resistance against the Israeli's in South Lebanon. The story goes that she had run out of bullets, was surrounded by Israeli's, and continued firing to help her friends escape. Once she ran out of bullets, rather than be captured by the Israeli's or killed, she blew herself up. Apparently she planned this event in advance.

Again, however, it should be stressed that Ms. Abboud was in the middle of a battle, fighting directly with an armed enemy. She wasn't going into a market and blowing herself up, taking innocent civilians with her.

Others attribute the first female suicide bombing to Khyadali Sana a 16-year-old girl who drove a truck loaded with explosives into an IDF convoy in 1985 resulting in two deaths, including her own.

But centuries before Ms. Abboud, there were the Ismalis Nizari or The Assassins, a group of Muslim fighters who used suicide attacks as a strategy to advance Islam. The Ismalis Nizari considered their own lives to be a sacrificial offering, however, they took aim at particular people and individuals, as opposed to the present practice of taking out groups of persons unknown to the suicide bomber.

A Matter of Semantics?
Inevitably there comes the argument that Islam doesn't allow suicide. This is true. Islam teaches quite clearly against regular suicide:

"O ye who believe!... [do not] kill yourselves, for truly Allah has been to you Most Merciful. If any do that in rancor and injustice, soon shall We cast him into the Fire..." (Qur'an 4:29-30).

It is highly unlikely that the average Muslim, including the ones who commit what we call “suicide bombings” have even remotely considered suicide. I realize the western media has dubbed these attacks as “suicide bombings” but they really cannot rightly be called such.

Suicide implies a despondency which is yet unproven in most cases where these bombings and other self-death attacks have occurred. Studies on “suicide” jihadis, looking into their lives, etc., haven't clearly demonstrated where any were despondency prior to these events. Of course, someone could say “well you have to be mentally imbalanced to do something like this!”

But suicide is defined as the “act of causing one owns death.” The clinician will expound by explaining that “positive” suicide is when one is successful in enacting their death; whereas “negative” suicide is when one escapes, say, by calling 911 and getting help after taking an overdose of pills.

Whether positive or negative, suicide is usually a loners action. It's not intended to be a communal affair, though there have been instances where entire groups- or near entire groups- have committed “mass suicide.” In general, however, they're not intending to take out others with them as does the classic “suicide bomber.”

Could it be that what we consider “suicide” isn't suicide in the minds of those doing it? Given that what we do know about those who commit these acts, they tend to be more religiously devout than those who are more “moderate” in their approach to Islam as a way of life, maybe it's simply a matter of semantics. At least, that's the general thinking.

And, when we see non-jihadis supporting this behavior, including the national exhortation of these “suicide bombers” as heroes in Islamic quarters, then we have to ask if maybe we in the West haven't misnamed these acts as “suicide bombings” when what we mean is “homicide bombings.”

It must be remembered that in many Islamic quarters these bombers (and those who commit “suicide” in other ways, while taking out others) are seen as “martyrs.” A Salafi Manhaj article seems to make this distinction as well. Noting that martyrdom in the “way of Allah” is one of the most noble acts (and in the Quran, guarantees one their portion in heaven), the author stipulates:

"Perhaps the first most important thing to direct the reader’s attention to is the difference between an act of war which involves a suicide (such as a suicide bombing) and an act of war which is apparently suicidal (such is a lone warrior charging the ranks of the enemy in the near-certain knowledge that he will be killed in the process). No scholar disputes the praiseworthiness of the second type of act. It is only the first type of act, the predetermined, intentional taking of ones own life in a clear act of suicide, which remains a subject of contention."

The writer then goes on to mention that suicide “bombings” are under debate between Islamic scholars, with some calling the act “haram” or illegal to perform. The reason being, as the writer points out, that the victims of suicide bombings, etc., tend to be soft-target civilians as opposed to battle-field ops. “Islam forbids the killing of innocents.”

With the portal of possibility open, the semantics begin. Just who is an innocent person? Who is a martyr? Is it suicide or homicide or battle-related casualty?

Just one year after the 7/7 attacks in London, a poll showed that some 13% of UK Muslims believed that suicide bombers were “martyrs.” This should alarm the authorities in the UK. But it should also alarm the rest of the world as well.

While the 2007 Pew Research poll showed that the majority of American Muslims eschewed such violence, a strikingly large number (particularly among the younger population) believed that violence was sometimes a necessity. The data showed that, among young Muslims some 26% felt that “suicide bombings” were justified on various levels. That may not sound like much- it's on 26% of the 1,050 young adult Muslims interviewed. But we're talking about 273 people who think there's some justification for this activity. Out of those, 1/10 could be a female.

POSING A DILEMMA
The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights 2005 report on Female Suicide Terrorism cited one of the counter-terrorism issues this increase in female participation creates:

“Concern is raised that in conducting investigation into these attacks fundamental
human rights may be at risk. As women increasingly are seen as actors, law enforcement
officers will have to focus their attention more on women. When police
conduct searches, house or body-searches certain concerns have to be kept in mind
and respected.”

The above “western” solution to dealing with female jihadis affords them a respect that may ultimately prove a hazard. One would think that innocent Muslims would have no problem with such simple things as body scanners in airports. However, even the “moderate” Muslims are already complaining on a worldwide basis and refusing to allow the technology to be used on them for “religious reasons.” And, with the help of “civil liberties” groups, we could easily expect to see more, and possibly more violent, attacks in airports or on airplanes.*

Another dilemma posed by women jihadis is that they can- and often do- don attire which allows them to interject themselves into the target area almost virtually unsuspected. For those unfamiliar with traditional Islamic attire for women, a brief rundown and description:

Hijab. Probably the most known of the traditional styles worn by Muslim women, it consists of a large swath of cloth, sometimes patterned and gilded, sometimes not, which covers the entire head, neck and shoulder region. Sometimes an under scarf is also worn to keep hair in place.

Jilbab and Abaya. These are both loose-fitting outer garments which covers everything except the head and hands.

Niqab is a face-veil which covers everything except the eyes.

Burka is another head piece which covers the entire face with a screen allowing the woman to see but not allowing her to be seen.

Khimar is a billowy head piece which ties under the skin and flows like a cape around the upper torso. **

Is it likely that these styles could cover a bomb? Certainly.

A 2008 report from the Department of Homeland Security mentioned the use of camouflage by Muslim women, including the use of pregnancy prosthetics, which would go completely undetected underneath the loose fitting clothing worn traditionally by Muslim women.

In 2005, twenty-year-old Wafa Samir Ibraim Bas was stopped at the Erez crossing in Gaza carrying over 22 pounds of explosives. Scanners did pick up this amount of explosives, however, they were not being carried in a bag. Bas carried them inside her abaya.

Israel also reported, in 2005, that since 2004, more than fifty instances of female “suicide” bombings have occurred in that country alone. Do we really think that Israel is alone in this situation? It would seem that the rest of the world is seeing what Israel has had to deal with for over thirty years.

FEMALE TERRORIST PSYCHOLOGY.
Is there something to be observed about women who commit terrorist acts that makes them in some way different from their male counterparts? The presupposition seems to be that because of their low status in Islamic teaching and culture, these women feel compelled to commit these acts as a way of elevating themselves to the same level as their male counterparts. There are other “theories” as well, but this seems to be the predominant one and it hinges on the idea that these women are suicidally depressed.

But a 2008 article in Foreign Policy in Focus took exception to the theories proposed in media and within the rank and file of a far removed pop-psychology approach. Instead, the article sets aside the “gender-based” explanation for something more practical.

To begin with, they explore the fact that there hasn't been any real geographic done on this population. The women are not all poor, uneducated, nor even necessarily deprived of their freedom. Some were raised Muslim; others were not. There's no specific psychological strand that runs throughout the women. The motivations are as varied as the women who have them.

Secondly, what research there is out there, doesn't explain why there has been an increase in the number of women who have become suicide bombers. This poses a problem for a west which is trying to balance the need for screening and safety with an equally strong desire to maintain cultural and religious freedom for all people, regardless of race, religion or gender.

One thing that is known, is that the training these women receive- if they receive any- usually lasts no more than four or five days. Too much time through training means time the person could have to rethink their destination. Wearing the mantle of “martyr” may not seem quite so grand if one has time to really think about it.

A Possible Solution?
So what's the solution? Airplanes aren't the only place where women have been involved in terrorist acts. In fact, airplanes see the least likely target- perhaps because they are in the forefront of screening.

And lately, we've been seeing a great deal of complaining from the Muslim community over the topic of the “right” of a Muslim woman to wear her particular style of clothing. Some have argued, therefore, that these items should be banned. But would that necessarily stop an ideology?

Some have proposed that feminism could solve the problem. Those who make this suggestion haven't grappled with the issue of semantics. When you or I think of feminism, we think of women who don't have to wear a hijab, but want to wear it and have the right to wear or not to wear.

But the term Muslim Feminist could also imply the “right” to participate in jihad just as the men do. In his paper on Palestinian female bombers, Yoram Schweitzer noted that Wafa Idris, a female bomber who killed two and wounded more than fifty others in Jaffa, was...

“...crowned a hero throughout the entire Arab world and was portrayed as a symbol of the new Muslim feminism.”

In the West Bank and Gaza, parades declare the women who have participated in terrorist activity, whether as suicide bombers or otherwise, are celebrated as heroines. Families talk with praise about their daughters.

Logic would seem to dictate that if we simply make Muslim women realize their worth apart from Islamic teaching, that somehow we can change their minds. But that would be a misplaced logic, in my opinion.

In the past two months alone, there have been three arrests of Muslim women who were involved with terrorist attack attempts. Last month it was Kimberly S. Al-Homsi, a convert to Islam with a track record of erratic behavior and specifically terrorist behavior and threats; and then this month, Colleen R. LaRose, aka, Jihad Jane, and one of her cohorts, Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, also a convert to Islam.

I suspect we will see more of these in the future, in particular as so-called human rights groups, like CAIR and the MSA, complain about Muslims being the “target” of profiling at places such as airports and other facilities.

I propose something harsher than what we in the West are used to, and that is: we treat the female terrorist no different from the male ones.

I also suggest we stop looking for a “reason.” Ultimately, no excuse is reasonable. And maybe it's time to start looking more closely at converts- particularly women converts- in the west just as we need to look more closely at those males who convert to Islam. Several men are sitting in prison today who converted to Islam and then became jihadists.

So we are going to have to make a decision. Do we keep on the same path, fearful that we'll cross over some unspecified Constitutional “rights” line; or do we get realistic and realize that our own sense of justice, equality and liberty may be being used against us?

SOURCES
http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/10/a-list-of-american-jihadis/
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/07/28/the-rising-number-of...
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub408.pdf
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/3/2/8/p...
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/03/are-female-suicide-bombers-the-w...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/15/al-qaeda-looking-recruit-engl...
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2010/02/15/al-qaeda-recruitin...
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-Englis...
http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2005/05/14827_en.pdf
http://www.npr.org/programs/wesat/transcripts/2003/jul/030705.davis.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3989813/Martyrdom-in-Islam-Versus-Suicide-Bomb...
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/13-of-british-muslims-call-77-bombers...
American airports offer a person the option to have a “pat down” and exterior scan using the wand. However, it would be easier for a woman to hide a weapon or item from a pat down or wand than from a body scanner. A grown woman could place a hypodermic with a micro-fine needle, in capped casing, between her butt cheeks or under a breast and it would not be picked up by the wand because of the fat layers it's hidden under and a pat down never includes the breast area nor interior of the posterior.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITQkN7I0mrY
Muslim spokesperson, Nihad Awad, proposed that the software be modified so that the images cannot be preserved. Sounds reasonable until you realize that the would-be bomber could get off because of a lack of physical evidence should the image not be kept.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1818185,00.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2244293620070522
http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/JHSA_Femalesuicideb...
** I asked several women to brain storm with me about the types of items which could be hidden under the various types of coverings and clothing worn by Muslim women which might not be easily spotted. The Jilbab/Abaya and Khimar seemed the most likely to cover a bomb or larger explosive device or other firearms, like a hand gun. Knives could also be easily hidden under these types of outer wear as well.
http://www.fpif.org/articles/behind_the_surge_in_iraqi_women_suicide_bom...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/23/60II/main555401.shtml
http://www.labat.co.il/articles/R_M.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28104790/Indictment-1

Sometimes you have to scratch your head.

And then you cry.

A recent story out of Saudi Arabia makes you wonder if Shariah law needs to be internationally outlawed. Of course, the United Nations Council on Human Rights has said that one cannot even mention Shariah law when discussing human rights violations. Apparently this gives at least one Imam in Saudi Arabia the green light to speak out against attempts to stop the practice of marrying pre-pubescent girls.

In an article from Maktoob.com (“The Largest Arab on line community”) a news article quoted Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Teraifi, a well known Sheikh, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, member of the Council of Senior Scholars, argued that “outlawing the marriage of young girls to elderly men will have a negative affect on Saudi society as it will lead to the mixing of sexes which is impermissible in Islam.”

If that rationale seems shocking, it should be.

What started the debate was the story of a twelve year old girl who's father sold her off to an eighty year old man for approximately $23,000.

Teraifi went on to say that age “has nothing to do with the validity of the marriage contract, but consummation should be only when the bride reaches the age of puberty.”

That may sound reasonable. After all, we know that young girls are ready for intercourse at the age of twelve or thirteen, right?

What the Sheikh isn't saying is that Islamic scholars disagree with him and tend to think that a pre-pubescent girl should also be able to be a full bride.

Tafsirs, or exegetical commentaries by Islamic scholars, appeal to the Quran itself for support:

“[65:4] As for the women who have reached menopause, if you have any doubts, their interim shall be three months. As for those who do not menstruate, and discover that they are pregnant, their interim ends upon giving birth. Anyone who reverences GOD, He makes everything easy for him.”

At first it may not seem clear as to the topic. Islamic scholars have made it clearer for us:

"Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Quran the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Quran has held as permissible." -Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi: Tafhim al Quran. Commentary on Quran Chapter 65:4

“The `Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying.” -Tafsir 'ibn Kathir 65:4

"And [as for] those of your women who (read allā'ī or allā'i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months - both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days] [Q. 2:234]. And those who are pregnant, their term, the conclusion of their prescribed [waiting] period if divorced or if their spouses be dead, shall be when they deliver. And whoever fears God, He will make matters ease for him, in this world and in the Hereafter." -Tafsir Al-Jalalayn - Quran 65.4

"(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! "What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months." Another man asked: “what is the waiting period for those women who are pregnant?” (And for those with child) i.e. those who are pregnant, (their period) their waiting period (shall be till they bring forth their burden) their child. (And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah) and whoever fears Allah regarding what he commands him, (He maketh his course easy for him) He makes his matter easy; and it is also said this means: He will help him to worship Him well." Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs - Quran 65.4

"The interpretation of the verse "And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise". He said: The same applies to the 'idaah for girls who do not menstruate because they are too young, if their husbands divorce them after consummating the marriage with them." -Tafsir Al-Tabari, 14/142

Even Muhammed is recorded as clarifying the verse to mean that marriage and consummation with a pre-pubescent girl is acceptable:

"and those who never had menses, their prescribed period is three months before puberty, which indicates that giving her into marriage before puberty is permissible." Hadith in Arabic from Al-Islam.com

I realize the apologists will appeal to other passages and try to squirm their way out of the above Tafsirs. But the Grand Mufti of Saudi, himself an expert in the understanding and interpretation of the Quran, is supporting the Tafsirs. And they, as well, support him.

So, what are we to make of this news story?

For one thing, we have to wonder what kind of “holy book” winks and nods at pedophilia. In my holy book, the Bible, Christ was very firm about the sanctity of children:

Matthew 18:1-6

"At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

A vast difference. Where Mohammed said little pre-pubescent girls could be married off to men, Jesus had some stern words for those who would harm one of the little ones.

Another thing we have to ask ourselves is whether or not our own country takes this issue seriously enough to stand with the 3 out of 5 Saudi's who want to place a ban on child brides.

Yes, the latest poll showed that most Saudi's want an end to this heinous practice. Unfortunately, Saudi's don't want a minimum age to be determined. So I'm not sure they're serious about it, either.

A minimum marriage age would be a very good start to curbing the problem. Maybe. Yemen outlawed it but it's been so entrenched in Yemen society that the practice of marrying young girls off is still a problem in the Yemen courts.

The affects of child marriage are numerous. Young girls, too young to be having children, risk death from childbirth complications. Beatings are not uncommon. And some young girls and women, wanting to escape the abuse or fearing abuse, practice self immolation- attempting suicide by setting themselves on fire.

Child brides may be found in many other societies. India, for example, has outlawed the practice. It must be noted, however, that in India it's not a practice for much older, grown men, to marry little girls. In India (and other countries, such as Ethopia) “child marriage” means that both parties are children. Not just the girl. And usually they remain “married” but separate until they're old enough (puberty or older) and the girl goes to live with the boy's family.

Last but not least, we have to ask the question: why is a country so bent on freedom and human rights determined to continue placating and working with countries in which little girls are sold like chattel?

Our lawmakers know all too well that this has been an ongoing problem in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and other countries. And yet, for expediency's sake, we continue being supportive of those countries. Is it for oil? Is a little girl worth a cheaper gallon of gas? If that's the case, we don't have any right, as a collective country, even thinking about calling Saudi and other Islamic countries out on their human rights offenses.

http://business.maktoob.com/20090000438870/Child_bride_ban_bad_for_Saudi...
http://business.maktoob.com/20090000441526/Saudi_public_backs_child_brid...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Azeez_ibn_Abdullaah_Aal_ash-Shaikh
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=65
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/12667
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=65&tid=54196
http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=65&tAyahN...
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/11/world/fg-childbride11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UamNBfI5P8o
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/341/video.html
Bukhari, Book of Qualities of the Ansar, chapter: ‘The Holy Prophet’s marriage with Aisha, and his coming to Madina and the consummation of marriage with her’.

It didn't take long after the attack on an Austin, TX IRS building by a disgruntled Joseph Stack, before both righties and lefties decided to play the blame game. The blogosphere has been ablaze all day with leftists blaming the tea party gang and rightists pointing to Stack's seemingly pro-communist statement.

But just who was Joe mad at?

It would appear: everyone.

His manifesto, written days before he flew his private plane into the IRS offices in Austin, reads like the words of an angry man, a frustrated man, and a man who felt he had nothing left to live for.

But most of his anger is directed at the tax system and it's loopholes. In his “manifesto” he talks of his broken idealism:

“We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers.”

Joe reveals his pain in finding out that his country wasn't quite what he'd been told. He lost faith in the system that runs our nation and it's easy to see where a statement like the above could be taken to point to the far right or, at the very least, a right-leaning conspiratorial nut:

“I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.”

Joe's letter reveals a man upset at the consistent bail-outs given to corporations (he specifically cites the auto bail-outs). But he also points to another fiendish entity:

“Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy.”

It may be a while before we find out who the “group” was that Joe hooked up with, according to his blog, back in the 1980's. But it's very clear: Joe resents the Catholic church and it's wealth. And Joe believes the Government tax system made the Catholic church wealthy by allowing tax exemptions to churches (501-c3).

Joe isn't happy with any religious groups, though. He feels that religions take advantage of people:

“The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living.”

Joe believed there was “one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us”, which sounds a lot like the rhetoric one hears from the “left”.

So which one is Joe? An angry tea-party terrorist or a lefty anti-religion whack job?

Joe tells us a great deal about his life's struggles. His fight to gain a profitable education, even when it meant living on Ritz crackers and peanut butter. But he also tells us about an elderly woman who tried to convince him that eating cat food would be healthier for him.

Joe began feeling the sting of compassionate indignation back then.

Ultimately his attempts to better his life were thwarted by changes in the tax code in the 1980's. Joe claims these changes made it impossible for him to increase his lot in life. And they may well have. Part of the 1986 tax code change did amount to the “harassment” of independent “engineers and scientists”. Synergistech's website explains:

“Prior to 1987, any US worker who preferred to be engaged as an independent contractor needed only to request this status from his or her client, conduct him- or herself as an independent, and receive a Form 1099 rather than a Form W2 at year's end to qualify as an independent contractor for tax purposes.”

But things changed. The 1987 tax changes did not give independent contractors the same protections they had before the code changes (for more information, http://www.synergistech.com/ic-taxlaw.shtml ).

Joe relates that he ended up having to put in 100 hour work weeks:

“Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn’t need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a shit about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to 'shore up' their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.”

Joe's life took a turn for the worse- temporarily- and he ended up in divorce. But his downturn didn't last. It seemed his fortune was picking up- until the dot com bubble hit and 9-11 came (and the subsequent grounding of air traffic for several days) which made it difficult for Joe to get in contact with his customers.

This wasn't bad enough but then the government came to the economic aid of the airlines, offering them bail outs. Yet Joe got no bail out.

I can see where he would be frustrated.

Joe lost almost all of his business and most of his retirement. By this time California wasn't offering anything so Joe decided to move to Texas.

Texas was hit by the dot com bust, but not as hard as California. Larger corporations in Texas managed to survive mainly because Texas, unlike California, never adopted the angst for large corporations that California did. The average person in Dallas was smart enough to figure out that conglomerates and corporations put money back into the economy.

This is where Joe's recounting of his story starts sounding like he doesn't want to take into account his own poor decisions, one of which was deciding to be an independent contractor; the other of which was deciding to move to Austin- apparently without checking to see what the job market was like for independent contract engineers.

“By this time, I’m thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I’ll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I’ve never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn’t give a fuck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies.”

He should have tested the waters and reconsider being an independent contractor and perhaps applied with the larger companies. But being an idealist, rather than a realist, was Joe's downfall.

“To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn’t notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.”

Where to begin? Did he not call the IRS offices to find out if he should- or shouldn't- file a return? Did he bother calling H&R Block or even looking things up on the IRS website? Did he think to call a friend or family member for advice even?

Apparently not. Instead, in his obvious frustration, he decided he didn't have to file a tax return.

Almost everyone has to file a tax return.

Even the unemployed, unless they're a dependent deduction.

What's odd about Joe's story is he relates that he had “CPA” experience which ultimately led him to the conclusion that he would never step into a CPA office again.

Another choice he made. Joe had an epiphany:

“But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.”

Joe claims that he was messed over by a person he trusted with his economic issues. This professional he names as one Bill Ross. Apparently Ross did a shoddy job of dealing with Joe's economic issues, which Joe interpreted as being self-serving:

“To make matters worse, Ross knew all along (paperwork) was missing and I didn’t have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.”

Perhaps the better choice for professional help would have been a psychiatrist. Joe certainly seemed to have been slipping away, emotionally anyway.

Years ago I dealt with a woman who presented on the psychiatric unit with what her psychologist believed was Multiple Personality Disorder (aka Dissociative Identity Disorder). The paperwork claimed that she was “thirty five years old, displaying the identity of a young child...”

She was also faking. Upon interview, the woman said she had tried to get help. She reached out for help. Nobody listened. Finally, after reading the book SYBIL, she decided the best way to get her point across was to fake multiple personalities. She was right. It got her attention and eventually the help she truly needed.

But Joe's inspiration didn't lead him to the appropriate help. Instead, it led him to suicide:

“I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.”

But was it just a case of a despondent man who made bad choices and suffered failures on account of the “system”?

Throughout the document, it becomes apparent that Joe suffers from the ill-effects of a liberal mind-set that says the government owes you. There's a mindset which flows easily to class envy. And there's an angst towards religion in general.

Perhaps the one thing that could have helped Joe would have been faith, offering hope and perhaps some good emotional support at a local church as well.

But Joe eschewed that option, just as surely as he blamed the “haves” for his own “have not.”

Joe takes a swipe at the Federal Aviation Administration, referring to it as the “tombstone agency”, and he refers to Bush as a puppet, presumably of the FAA. Why he does this is unclear. But there's a clue as to Joe's plan: he flies a plane and hates the government entity which regulates his flying a plane.

As one reads the closing statements of Joe's “manifesto” one can see the cries for help. But one also sees where he has developed a strained mindset:

“I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.”

Joe sees himself as a martyr. One of many. One among all the poor martyrs, in particular the minorities of America, whom he sees as victims of a hostile system.

And he's had enough:

“...but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.”

Joe almost sounds like a rightie tea party person, except that he doesn't mention Obama- only the Reagan and Bush years. He doesn't mention Clinton.

In case you think I'm straining a gnat by pointing out that Joe was a liberal in his mindset, I defer to his closing statements:

“I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Joe hated the IRS and the government long before Obama came into office. And perhaps Obama's inability is partially to blame for Joe's eventual psychological break. After all, Obama did spread the concept for people like Joe to hold on to for hope:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama didn't come through for Joe, but that didn't matter because Joe's problems began under Reagan.

I finish with the last statement made by Joe:

“The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”

This is hardly a tea party summation of capitalism. It's hardly the kind of thing one would hear Rush Limbaugh say.

It is, however, something one hears from liberals (in various forms) on a consistent basis.

Which makes me wonder if liberalism doesn't feed mental illness in an already unstable person.

I know there's people who say I am politicizing a tragedy. I admit I am turning this to the political issue. And I admit both sides have their whack jobs. But I wonder if this class envy attitude that gave Obama a ride into office isn't coming back to haunt us now.

I hope and pray this is the only incident.

My prayers are with the friends and families of Joe and his victims.

I was on my way home from a Gospel sing tonight when I saw the police had cordoned off the exits from the 820 corridor to the main streets going near my house. Earlier someone had mentioned that a woman had a bomb and was threatening people.

A bomb? What's up with that?

I finally found an exit (going 4 miles out of my way). And when I got home, I did some checking with the news.

The woman with the bomb is one Kimberly Homsi, aka, Asma Al-Homsi.

If the name sounds familiar to you, it should.

In 2005, Ms. Homsi stood on an intersection in Garland, Texas, holding what appeared to be a grenade and threatening to blow herself up. As it turned out, the grenade was a fake. And police suspected that Homsi was doing it to “test” police response.

Homsi and her lover, Aisha Abdul-Rahman Hamad, were also watched closely by the FBI. Ithe case of Homsi, she had assault rifle and explosives training courtesy of her dual citizenship and ties to Osama Bin Laden- she is friends with his personal secretary, Wadih El Hage, a convicted terrorist.

Homsi was also involved, along with her lover, in the Love Field terrorism incident wherein they were spotted surveying and pacing off the Love Field Airport in Dallas.

http://cbs11tv.com/video/?id=19830@ktvt.dayport.com

With all of this (and much more behavior) coming from these women, I have to ask: why the hell are they still on the loose?

May I say that I think we're being far too lenient?

Then tonight a friend says she may return home to nothing if the bomb is real because Ms. Homsi is doing her dirty deed around the corner from my friend's home.

Just a quarter mile away is a nursing home.

And let's not forget the various businesses and homes in the area.

Homsi has posed a threat to our country since 2005 (that we know of.) She has direct ties to a convicted terrorist. She holds dual citizenship with the U.S. and Syria.

And she's been allowed to wander on probation?

I think it's time we stopped pussyfooting with these people. Woman, man or child, if you're going to do this stuff, the zero tolerance rule needs to apply and the FIRST time someone does this all freedom of movement should be denied, period.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/Possible-terror-incident-in-Fort-Worth-84316367...

This last week a bus driver in Chicago was indicted for the sexual assault of a mentally challenged student. What he did should have caused outrage: he ordered her to the back of the bus then ordered her on her knees to perform oral sex on him. Then he drove her home.

The story doesn't end there.

Once the man found out that the girl reported it and police were investigating him, he went to the girls home, on three separate occasions, and banged on her door, yelling and screaming at her. On one instance she was arriving home and he grabbed her arm, yelling: “I ought to kick your ass!”

I bring this story to the news to point out that this is not an isolated incidence. Nor is it limited to the United States. Worldwide data on how many mentally challenged people are abused each year is difficult to obtain. But if we go by prior American studies “more than 90% of people with developmental disabilities will experience some form of sexual assault or abuse” (Sobsey & Varnhagen, 1989).

What could possibly create such a sad situation? After all, we're in the 21st century, a time when even using certain words is seen as an assault on the senses.

Remember the Don Imus situation? The man lost his very livelihood and received national condemnation for referring to a women's basketball team as a group of “nappy-headed ho's”.

In the United States, words may not be officially outlawed, but they are carefully considered. And because of that we seldom hear “kike, nigger, chink” etc. Archie Bunker's political incorrectness days have been replaced with what is actually common sense and decency.

Except for one group of people.

For some reason it's still perfectly acceptable to use the term “mentally retarded” as an insult. When a person does something stupid, or says something that's ridiculous, rather than calling it like it is, the insult d'jour is to call them “a retard.”

And there are people who stand in defense of doing this. The same people who would never use the term “kike” to refer to a Jewish person or “nigger” to refer to a black person, never bat an eye at using “retard” as an insult. In fact, they usually justify it by saying that it's “not insulting the mentally challenged” person to use their condition as an insult to others.

Let me get this straight.

It's an insult to call someone mentally retarded- except to the mentally retarded?

Let's try it on this way. Let's say that someone considers being called a Jew to be an insult. Anti-Semites do it all the time. Just who is ultimately insulted here? The person being called a Jew? Or the Jewish person? The implication- the obvious implication- is that it's supposed to be a “bad thing” to be Jewish.

Doesn't that hold true with the mentally retarded as well?

CHANGING THE NAME:
a historical difficulty

As the parent of a son with Downs Syndrome, and as a person with a PhD in Developmental Science and an MD in Developmental Psychiatry, I have long been an advocate of calling disabilities by their clinical names. Unfortunately, a hostile society often has relabeled, mislabeled, and absconded the terminologies used to classify the mentally retarded, thus making it quite difficult to advocate for the correct terminology.

Throughout the centuries, people with mental retardation were treated as an enigma. They were called “fools” during the middle ages and often became servants in the courts of nobility. They were not usually kindly treated and if, by chance, they had a marked physical malformation- all the better.

Remember the movie, The Hunchback of Notre Dame? That wasn't the story of Beauty and the Beast. It was a story about how people with mental retardation and physical deformities were once treated, and without any regard for the fact that they, too, have feelings.

Other terms used included “idiot” or “idiocy”, which at one time was the scientific diagnosis until 1914. Other alternative terms have included imbecile and moron, both of which are used (along with idiot) to cast insult on another person's intellectual abilities.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) for the American Psychiatric Association lists Mental Retardation (pg 41,DSM IV) as one of several mental health issues which fall into the category of disorders which are usually diagnosed in infancy, childhood or before age eighteen.

There are levels of severity of mental retardation. Someone who refers to this group of people as “window lickers” and “short bus” riders, would do well to bear in mind that the majority of the mentally challenged are diagnosed as “mildly mentally retarded” with an IQ averaging between 50-70.

Does 50-75 seem low for an IQ? Please keep in mind that, on scale, the average IQ is between 100 and 120, and many people have an IQ lower than that, but do not qualify as mentally retarded because there is no impairment in the rest of their living skills.

What many people miss is that mental retardation isn't only about IQ. It's also about whether or not- and to what degree- a person's overall life is impaired by the disability. Hence, there's more to the diagnoses than administering a Stanford-Binet or a Wechsler Intelligence Scale. One also has to look at the adaptive functioning ability of the individual as well.

Which is why this nonsense about using the term “retarded” as an insult is so repugnant to me. And it's why I wish we didn't shy away from using “mentally retarded” in referencing those who have this disability. For me it's like giving into the ignorance of the world rather than fighting a status quo which says it's perfectly okay to lump an entire group of people as all having the same behaviors, views, impediments, etc.

It's like saying all Muslims are terrorists- because some are.
It's like saying all Jews have large hook noses- because some do.
It's like saying all Catholics molest little boys- because some Priests did.

The difference, however, is that most mentally retarded people will not be able to stand up and fight. Many cannot. They're not intellectually and, in some cases, physically able to do so.

Instead there is a reliance on others to advocate for them. I take the approach of not running from the specific diagnosis, rather, reclaiming it, as many other groups of people have done when their social classification was used as a pejorative.

THE LAST BASTION OF PREJUDICE?
In over a thirty year span of time as a mother of a Downs Syndrome son, with twenty five of those years spent working with the mentally retarded in different settings, I can honestly say that I believe this group suffers- not because they're forgotten- but because of how they are remembered.

Which is basically very poorly.

The background history of the treatment of the mentally retarded is an up and down roller-coaster going from over-protection (ultimately ending up as a detriment) to social stigmatization and scape-goating.

Rather than go back through a detailed history, I would like to hit snippets for the reader involving the treatment of the mentally challenged in America.

We begin with the 1700's, a time when there was stark pauperism in the colonies and a war was taking it's toll. There was a concerted effort to care for the “idiot population” by placing them in asylum care. Initially this care was attended by people who had a modicum of compassion. But the asylum care was not segregated and populations became mixed between people with mental retardation and a wide range of mental illnesses, including alcoholism, “melancholia”, “madness” and other problems.

It didn't take long for the protection of the mentally retarded to become the isolation of them, and soon facilities expanded and this group was segregated off- usually far away from their own family. This wasn't for their protection as much as it was because what began as a religiously based philanthropic effort was soon taken over by a medical establishment which was, perhaps, as incapable of compassion towards them in the 1800's as Martin Luther was in the 1500's.

There were some bright spots, however, these were few and far between and often met with legal and medical resistance. Reformers found themselves on the outs with a population which was enamored with such things as eugenics and creating “better families.”

One of the concepts involved ensuring that this particular population didn't reproduce. It was wrongly believed that mental retardation was genetically caused. The infamous Kallikak study helped to buttress such notions, with little or no regard for the potential influence of environment and nurturing.

Because of this, the mentally retarded nationwide faced forced sterilization and medical experimentation in an attempt to “cure” the “problem.” Among those experiments was the frontal lobotomy, which was used on people with mental illness as well. Also employed was “split brain” surgery. The idea behind this surgery was to stem seizure activity as a secondary diagnosis (it was often believed that the retarded person became “an idiot” because of their seizures.)

Some reformers tried, with a certain success, to work on education and behavioral adaptation therapy. While it did not work with the “Wild Boy of Averyon”, the approaches used did work with other mentally challenged persons living in institutional settings.

Again, however, it must be reminded that most of these people became warehoused rather than helped; kept rather than trained.

Into the mid-1900's there wasn't much change. In fact, things became substantially worse. Seeking to curb a daughters' “unacceptable behavior”, the Kennedy family had a pre-frontal lobotomy performed on their daughter, Rosemary. For those who don't know, Rosemary (who passed away in 2005) was the older sister of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, founder of the Special Olympics.

In Rose's case, while she was “slower” than the other children, the lobotomy left Rose more severely disabled than before. Ultimately the family decided to do what so many did back then, they tucked her away where nobody would see her. Had it not been for Eunice, the world may never have known that Rosemary existed.

It wasn't uncommon for “experts” to attribute certain behaviors to mental retardation. Rose Kennedy's “mood swings” could have been due to several things, including the stress of living in the Kennedy family itself.

But this wasn't the only way in which the mentally challenged were experimented on.

As late as 1966, mentally retarded persons living in Willowbrook (the last admissions were in 1964- unless families signed a waiver to allow the institution to use their loved ones for “scientific study”, which they were told would not harm their family member.)

Dr. Saul Krugman of New York University conducted studies of hepatitis during the 1950s and 1960s on the severely mentally retarded . He systematically infected newly arrived children between the ages of three and eleven with strains of the virus obtained from the feces of Willowbrook hepatitis patients.

For the record, the hepatitis wasn't only extracted from the feces and injected into the subjects- they were systematically and literally fed this fecal matter laced throughout their cereal in the morning. General Mills cereal knew of, and provided the cereal for the experiment. The American Medical Association endorsed it and touted it as a rousing success.

I could cite numerous abuses, experiments, etc. that come from history. And even today, there is a problem with the abuse of those with mental retardation. Countless news stories of “caregivers” abusing the very people they're supposed to tend to. I, personally, had to testify in more than one case of abuse and have helped assist authorities in investigation of allegations of abuse by supplying both information and my time as a diagnostician to assist in the interviewing of victims.

WHY ARE THEY STILL BEING ABUSED?
I have also experienced, firsthand and in a very close way, the abuse of the mentally retarded.

In 1987, while living in Charleston, S.C., I made the acquaintance of a neighbor who's daughter was moderately mentally retarded. “Donna” was able to go to a local mini-mart on the base housing (this was a military housing area) and purchase candy and sodas with the help of store clerks who were aware of her condition.

At the time, my mentally challenged son was nine and Donna was fifteen with the cognitive level of, perhaps, a ten year old. She would often come to my home and watch cartoons with my son, or play chutes and ladders (their own way) or color in his coloring books.

One day one of my other sons came rushing in, out of breath. “Mom come quick! Something terrible has happened to Donna!”

I rushed after my son, Joe, who was headed off on his bike. We got to a wooded area, a cut through to the mini-mart, and there was Donna, sitting on the ground. She was in shock as her younger brother attempted to redress her. I told my son to go home with his friend and call the police and wait for Donna's mother to arrive back home.

After they left, I finished redressing Donna and walked her home. She was completely silent and walked along as if she were a zombie. “Donna,” I asked. “Do you know what happened?” She said nothing.

For several weeks after, she still said nothing. But because my son and her brother had seen a group of boys leaving the wooded area laughing and joking, the authorities were able to bring them in for questioning and ultimately get to the truth.

Six boys, ranging in age from ten to sixteen, took turns raping Donna. Vaginally, anally and orally. They also urinated on her. When asked in court hearings whatever made them pick Donna, several of them said: “She's a retard. It's not like she'd know what happened or anything.”

One afternoon, after several weeks of silence, sitting in a fetal position in the corner of her room, and becoming incontinent, Donna broke silence. My son took her a toy he'd won in a claw machine. It wasn't much, just a small stuffed mouse holding a heart with the words: “you're the best” on it. When he handed it to her, Donna smiled, took his small hand, and sat down to watch television. She spoke two words: “thank you.”

Someone out there is probably going to say: “well those boys were acting retarded.” Oh, really? I can think of better words, like disgustingly, perverted, sexually sadistic.

But is that how a retarded person acts? Or is the act of kindness my son showed more representative of “acting retarded?”

I am a firm believer that the reason people mistreat the mentally retarded is because there's still that assumption that limited intellect means a person is less human than others. This dehumanization worked well for Hitler. The only difference between that and what we see today is that Hitler had to manufacture lies to convince German citizens that Jews were “subhuman”.

Nobody has to invent lies to believe that about the mentally challenged. They're assumed “subhumanness” is already engrained in society.

One day I took a woman to task over her use of the term to insult a political figure. The woman then informed me that, when she used the term “mentally retarded” as an insult, it wasn't a reference to people with mental retardation.

I apologized and explained that I didn't realize there were mentally retarded carrots, trees and kittycats.

Mental retardaion is a HUMAN condition. It is never diagnosed in plants or animals for the simple reason that it cannot be so diagnosed. One may say that a plant's “growth has been retarded” (or slowed). But one cannot say that the plant, itself, is “retarded.”

Now, you may wonder what spurred me to write this article.

For several years I have participated in a chat program called PALTALK. I would say that the majority of the time, people on it are courteous, socially aware, and generically nice.

However, I have also found that there are not a few who lack the skill or where with all to encorporate common courtesy into their lingo.

When I have attempted to kindly correct, it's been met by both social liberal and social conservative with angry resentments. Some even use their familial history (having had a sibling or other relative with mental retardation) as a qualifier for being less sensitive about the issue.

Rather like the person who says it's okay to beat up on their brother, since after all, “we're kin.”

I'm very proud of my son and his many accomplishments. And through the years, I have come to know many people with mental retardation who have brought me joy, tested my resolve, challenged my patience, and loved me unconditionally.

Believe me when I say that, as a population, the mentally challenged have their own “bad apples”- usually because of the way they were treated or how they were directed in life- but still there nonetheless. The mentally retarded are not angels.

But neither are they devils. And as far as that goes, I submit that even the most severe among them have a purpose in this life and that purpose may well be giving others a purpose for their lives?

Last year I said goodbye to a dear old friend. M.C. passed away after working as a direct care provider in group homes for the mentally retarded for over 15 years. He took very good care of the consumers in his charge- a group of six mentally retarded men. He treated them as “the guys” and helped them to have a better life than many of them had until that point. You see, four of the guys had been living their lives in large institutions where they experienced chronic neglect and abuse.

Through M.C.'s love and kindness, his firmness and his playfulness, he changed the lives of all six men, teaching them new skills for living, escorting and guiding them out in the general population so they, too, could enjoy movies, the state fair, and trips to Sea World.

As M.C. once told me: “these guys make my world better because they live, I have a purpose for living.”

How many of us can say that about our contribution to the lives of others? To whose life do you bring purpose?

Religious Freedom or Religious Bigotry?

As a Christian, I find it almost comical when I read some comments surrounding the Trijicon rifle scope news story. For those of you unfamiliar with the story, allow me to capsulize.

For nearly two decades, the rifle scope manufacturing company, Trijicon, has been producing and supplying scopes to the United States Military. “Encoded” on those scopes is - a Bible verse. No, not the whole verse, just the “bible code” for the verse. For example: JN8:12- surrounded by other letters and numbers. These are stock numbers, not proselytizing tools. And they're not designed to encourage warfare, rather, they're designed to “give comfort” to Christians in the military- that is- IF they even know it's on the scope!

We're not talking “Allure Akbar” here. We're not talking some passage from Deuteronomy or an angry King David asking God to “slay mine enemies.” We're talking comfort passages:

“When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Now granted, not all members of the military believe in Jesus. But I bet that if you took a poll, the majority would say they do. So riddle me this: how many of our military do you think spend their time reading the stock numbers on their rifle scopes? Even military officers, when called by ABCNews, said they were unaware of the bible verse encoded in the stock numbers.

Chances are, most Christians serving in the military read something other than their rifle scopes- like the Bible- to name one thing.

What happened next is probably the most disturbing part of this rifle scope saga. To begin with, the Pentagon decided to be “disturbed” by the situation. Not only that, a group calling itself the MILITARY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOUNDATION has found a way to make political correctness in our military their reason for existing (I guess everyone has to have a hobby?)

The MRFF, as it turned out, were the pea brains who exposed this terrible conspiracy to force convert non-Christian snipers via gun sites that not even the Pentagon knew about.

Referring to Trijicon's buckling under pressure as a “monumental victory”, the MMRF posted a sample of one of the “Jesus Bible Code” scopes on their website. To be honest, though I've been a Christian for twenty years, had they not circles it in red, I never would've noticed it.

So then, exactly why is this such a huge victory for the MRFF? To answer that question, we need to find out more about the group.

Who Is Mikey Weinstein?
I guess the kindest way to describe him is a guy with way too much time on his hands and more hyperbole on his lips than Cindy Sheehan.

The more accurate way to describe him is to call him what he is: a religious bigot.

Keep in mind, he had no problem supporting Nadal Hassan's rights. Hassan, the 15th “victim” of the shooting rampage at Fort Hood, and other Muslims, had Mikey in their corner as Mr. Weinstein called upon President Obama, in the wake of the shooting, to issue an official statement that there would be a zero tolerance policy against any form of harassment or reprisals against specifically “Islamic members of the US military.”

This is the same Weinstein who has “18 cases at Fort Hood involving soldiers who allege they have been subjected to non-stop fundamentalist Christian proselytism.”

Weinstein apparently seeks to eradicate the vestiges of Christians following the great commission at military bases around the world:

"Fort Hood is one of our worst hot spots of the nearly 1,000 US military installations scattered around the world in approximately 132 countries. We've had a particular problem with the public elementary school that's actually situated on the installation where children of soldiers have been continuously proselytized to."

Funny, that story never made headlines (or even a passing glance) here in Texas.

It also seems rather interesting that Mikey never mentions that Hassan tried to convert people to Islam so often that he was reprimanded for being pushy.

No, Mikey would rather focus on Jerry Falwell (who is long dead); James Dobson (who is retired); and John Hagee (who is so pro-Israel that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a rifle clip with Hagee's name on it.)

By the way, did I mention that Mr. Weinstein is Jewish? I wouldn't bring it up except that Mr. Weinstein uses his being Jewish as a mantel for his victim hood and a rally cry to stop what he sees as a vast evangelical conspiracy.

He also seems to think that gives him a carte blanch to castigate other's belief systems in ways that trump anything Evangelicals may say.

Take, for example, this little interview he gave with Buzzflash wherein he was asked about his fight to rid the military of the great commissioners:

“BuzzFlash: How did you become aware of what’s happening there now?
Michael L. Weinstein: I really have to thank Mel Gibson. When Mel came out with his wonderful movie in February of 2004 -- I forget the name -– it was called the Jesus Chainsaw Massacre, or Freddie Versus Jesus -– when that movie came out [meaning The Passion of the Christ] I was not contacted by my three children who were at that time at the Academy. I was contacted by non-evangelical Christian members of the faculty. They knew that my wife and I had given a lot of blood, sweat, tears, money, and effort over the years, because we loved the Academy. They wanted to know if I was aware of just how profoundly, how comprehensively, the Academy as an entity was coming down on the cadets and staff to go see this movie.
I was stunned. For three straight days, the cadets were marched into Mitchell Hall, this huge, two-acre dining facility, and General Myers was exhorting them, pressuring them, to go see this thing.”

In actuality, this turned out to be more hyperbole related to the film, The Passion of the Christ. Which, by the way, would likely have been a major flop in the box offices had Christaphobes kept their fear-mongering flappers shut.

I went to see the film. The place was packed. As I left one woman broke the silence: “I'm not a Christian but I still don't see what all the excitement was about. It's just another movie with violence in it.”

Fact: it was Easter Week, a holy time for Christians. Fact: they passed out fliers announcing the films' release on more than one occasion. Fact, the General encouraged the troops to participate in Easter week activities and talked about his own faith. Fact: it was a special screening of the movie. Fact: mass emails were sent out.

Fact: nobody was forced to attend the movie. Emails can be deleted. Fliers can be tossed in the trash. And nobody in the military ordered anyone to go to an Evangelical church.

But Mikey Weinstein doesn't stop at hyperbole. He makes consistently inflammatory remarks which, if applied to any other group, could well be regarded as hate speech.

When discussing the various Christian organizations on military campuses (I will point out here as well that the academies allow MANY religious groups to exist on campus, not just Christian ones) Weinstein lamented:

“You can’t count them all….We look exactly like the Crusaders of 1096 to the Iraqis and now the Afghans.”

Someone needs to tell Weinstein that most of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan have little or no knowledge of our military academy extracurricular organizations. And I seriously doubt that all- or even a substantial number of- Iraqis and Afghanis see our military as Crusaders from 1096. Crusaders from this century maybe, but not from 1096- no camel tanks in sight.

According to the Dept. of Defense (2009) it is estimated that 4, 677 of the 1.4 million service members are Jewish; 3,409 are Muslim; 3,300 are Buddhist; 1,500 are Wiccan. In fact, there are more than 100 faith groups in the military. And yes, the majority of those identifying themselves by religion are within a very wide and inclusive circle called “Christian.”

But that circle called Christian has a convoluted mixed bag within it. For one thing, it arbitrarily mixes Mormons with Baptists within the ranks of “Protestants” while leaving Roman Catholic as a stand alone group.

Baptists have never considered Mormons to be Protestant, let alone, Christian. But military expediency tends to lump groups together.

Is there a need to “rid” the military of an ever encroaching and dangerous Evangelical bombardment?

The United States military is the largest example of religious tolerance and inclusion one can find. This isn't an accident nor is it part of some grand experiment. And only in recent years- with the upsurge of “personal rights” taking precedence over military cohesion- have we seen problems develop. Until we went to war in Iraq, for example, we didn't see troops turn on their own in the name of Allah.

What caused this drastic change? Simple: the overall assumption that personal rights are more important than cohesion.

This, more than anything else, creates the unstable environment and cloak which covers a Nidal Hassan until such time as he erupts and explodes.

The military not only has more than 100 religions represented in it's ranks; it also insists that Chaplains from all faiths be prepared to assist those of other faiths. An article on NEWS BLAZE notes:

“Military chaplains are trained in interdenominational services and typically carry Jewish and Christian versions of the Bible; the New Testament; the Book of Mormon; the Quran; prayer rugs; and a portable altar, among other items. Army Chaplain (Major) Carlos C. Huerta even carries sage in his medicine bag, which he has given a Lakota Sioux Indian to burn - a tribal ritual to cleanse a warrior before battle.”

But it only seems to be the Evangelical Christians that bother Weinstein and his crowd.

Weinstein and his organization have sued the military more than once on grounds that their personal rights were violated by “radical Christians.”

In a 2006 article in Salon magazine, Weinstein openly castigated an event wherein a Christian group shot a video inside the Pentagon featuring military Senior officers speaking about their religious faith. Weinstein filed under the Freedom of Information act to find out who gave the go-ahead for the filming. In the Salon interview about the matter, Weinstein appears to have traded his Air Force cover for a tin-foil hat:

“Having permission, to me, just shows the complicity. We have a systemic problem. You sound like you're too young to remember Robert Redford in 'Three Days of the Condor,' but the premise of that movie was that there was a CIA within the CIA. We have a virulently dominionist, fundamentalist evangelical Christian element within the Pentagon. They would prefer this to be the 'Pentecostalgon,' not the Pentagon. That's what they would prefer. They're trying to turn the Pentagon into a frickin' faith-based initiative, and that is not what our military is about.”

He's right that the military is not about religion. He's wrong in assuming this means there's no accommodation nor allowance for religion in the military. But comparing this to the fictional (but well done movie) story of a conspiracy? Come on!

Next thing he'll be claiming is that Pat Robertson and Billy Graham were behind 9-11.

In 2006 the US Air Force eased up on its regulations regarding religious expression. Existing guidelines had been challenged by Weinstein in court in a case wherein he claimed that evangelicals at the Academy were violating regulations regarding proselytism.

U.S. District Judge James A. Parker in Albuquerque, N.M., in a 16-page decision, said the graduates could not claim their First Amendment rights were violated since they no longer attended the Academy. Moreover, the group failed to give specific examples of which cadets were harmed, or when.

Simply not liking something is never grounds for legal action. There has to be evidence of injury not conjectured injury.

The follow up guidelines change in the Air Force hasn't appeased Mr. Weinstein. In 2006 the USAF decided to ease up on guidelines involving religious activities. Superior officers were to be allowed to discuss their faith with subordinates and chaplains and would no longer be required to offer nonsectarian prayers.

This change is objectionable to Mr. Weinstein. But then, so was the Unit nickname for the 523rd Fighter Squadron which happened to be “Crusaders”:

"The airmen of 523rd Fighter Squadron . . . not only have invoked the term 'Crusaders' to describe their unit; they use blatantly sectarian religious symbolism on the patches they affix to their uniforms and the official logo of their unit...I'm not asking them. I'm demanding they change it."

The logo, which has been in use for years, “has a giant crucifix on it” says Weinstein. He managed to get the squadron “mothballed” by inundating the Air Force with complaints about the symbolism. It's a Cross, not a Crucifix. It's a helmet. It's military. And Mikey hates it.

Tactics of Fear Mongering
Throughout my life I've known religious bigotry. I grew up on the receiving end of it as people tried to tell me what I believed or, at the very least, how I should believe. Usually this was done by people who knew little, if anything, about what it was that I believed. And more likely than not, these were people who resented and opposed my right to evangelize. No, I wasn't a follower of Jerry Falwell. I was a Mormon.

Religious bigotry always masks itself. It hides behind the cloak of “some of my best friends are...” Religious bigotry also envelops an attempt by outsiders to define what it is that you believe based on their understanding of what you SHOULD believe.

For example, people who think that a Christian should never judge would say that I couldn't possibly be a Christian and criticize another religion. Never mind the fact that Christ, himself, called the Pharisees a “nest of vipers.” A “good Christian” doesn't “judge.”

Mikey claims half of his family is Christian- as if that somehow makes it impossible for him to harbor any dislike for Christianity. But if it's only a “small subset” of “premillenial, dispensational, reconstructionist, dominionist, fundamentalist, evangelical” Christians he has a problem with (imagine that name on a church sign) then why does he attack some of the basic teachings of Christianity with a sarcastic fervor only matched by Michael Moore?

Mikey says this is represented by 12.% of the American public, or 38 million Americans.

Actually, Mikey is taking aim- not at some minuscule subset, but a large hunk of American Christianity: Evangelicals. They encompass everyone from James Dobson to George Bush- both of whom are decidedly pro-Jewish and decidedly pro-Israel.

They're also Conservatives in the style of Ronald Reagan, whom Mikey proudly claims to have served under.

If you want to know what a man's genuine religious bigotries are, look at how he addresses a topic. Again, it's one thing if Mikey's concern is that the United States government or any branch thereof (in this case the military) is trying to force their religion down the throats of the general population. But we have an all volunteer military (which Mikey dislikes) which means everyone in it- including Christians- has a blank check to practice their religion.

For the record, Mikey does a lot of lumping. He lumps Randal Terry, a Catholic, in with Evangelicals. Terry is not, nor has he ever been one. He's just rabidly pro-life, which likely also bothers Mikey.

So what is it then that Mikey is really opposing? Apparently it isn't Father Mulcahy of M*A*S*H fame. Apparently it isn't Robert Schuller. And it isn't likely to be Troy Perry, either. No, the target is those ding-danged Pro-Israel, Christian Zionist, flag waving, gun loving Evangelicals.

Or is it? Mikey claims two events propelled him into action. One is when his son came to him and despaired that he, the son, might get in trouble at the Air Force academy because he was receiving taunts about being Jewish. Funny, this bastion of intolerance didn't seem a problem for Dad, who attended it during the 1970's- back when there would've been more intolerance towards Jewish people, not less.

And, if his claim that Evangelicals support Israel and love the Jews just because of Jesus and His eminent return is true, then it seems incoherent to claim in the same breath that they're a bunch of anti-Semites.

That is, unless you take the Tovia Singer approach and add in that they also believe in “missionizing” the Jews.

The other event which Mikey claims propelled him into action was the release of the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ.” I already covered Mikey's rather nasty approach to the topic of the movie so I won't repeat it. Being the tolerant person he is, he went to see it (so he claims) with an “evangelical friend”. “I thought the movie sucked,” he says amidst giggles.

Fair enough. I guess it would be okay to say Yentl sucked. But hey, cross-dressing rabbinical stories with a little girl-on-girl action isn't my thing either, right?

See Mikey, two can play the disrespect game. The only difference between us is that if they wanted to show Yentl and handed out fliers all around the Air Force Academy, I could care less. They're not babies going there. These are grown men and women who are protecting your rights and mine and if a group of Jewish cadets and Officers want to promote a pro-Jewish movie (which I suppose Schindlers' List would be a far better choice than Yentl) so be it.

“We defeated Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini...without becoming Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini,” he says. “Now as we go after the Taliban...and Al Queda...of course we have to fight...do we have to become the Christian Taliban to do that?”

Say what? There is no Christian Taliban, however, if one believed Mikey, one would think that evangelicals hate homosexuals; hate women; and desire to have our country totally Christian. Sure, there are some who have dreamed about a day when life was more moral. But Taliban? Please!

Mikey then goes on to tell people that a creeping enemy has taken hold while they slept. “Where were you,” he asks, “on Tuesday, July 12th, 2005...when on the front page of the newspaper (New York Times) most reviled by the Pentagon...the number two ranking General among the thousands in the Chaplain's Corps, Brigadier General Cecil R. Richardson made the following news statement: 'we reserve the right to evangelize anyone we determine to be unchurched. '”

Another sign of a religious bigot is that they tend to overlook context in an attempt to make their mission seem more urgent.

What Richardson really said was this: “We will not proselytize, but we reserve the right to evangelize the unchurched.” Either Mikey had a bad research day, or he doesn't know the difference between proselytizing and evangelizing the unchurched. But just in case there was any confusion, the Times continued:

“The distinction, he said, is that proselytizing is trying to convert someone in an aggressive way, while evangelizing is more gently sharing the gospel.”

.Apparently Mikey missed the part of the article where Richardson stated:

"I am an Assemblies of God, pound-the-pulpit preacher, but I'll go to the ropes for the Wiccan."

Another instance of Weinstein (and his supporters) skirting the truth came in conjunction of criticism about a conference held in Colorado:

“Evangelical Christians have become such a dominating presence in the military’s chaplain corps that the Air Force held a four-day Spiritual Fitness Conference at Hilton Hotel in Colorado Springs in 2005 for chaplains and their families.”

I guess a partial truth is okay if it makes things look like a given group is the bogeyman. But the fact is, the conference included people of other faiths, including Jewish chaplains:

“Air Force officials contend that the Spiritual Fitness Conference was not evangelical, pointing to the participation of a Catholic band leader and a Mormon expert on families. There was also an interfaith worship service in which all the chaplains planned to recite a Hebrew prayer together. They said that 10 Jewish chaplains stayed in the same hotel and were bused to the Air Force Academy for a separate program each day.” (same NYT article cited above.)

Mikey has made several other statements which turn out to be rather off-base. Among them is the claim that the Texas Republican Party platform seeks to “dispel the myth of separation of the church and state.”

Again, another half- truth. The text goes thusly:

“Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties – We affirm that the public acknowledgment of God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom, prosperity and strength. We pledge our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and toward dispelling the myth of separation of church and state.”

Do I need to remind the reader that the Constitution of the United States NOWHERE contains the phrase “separation of church and state?” Need I remind the reader that the phrase “separation of Church and state” comes from a phrase written in a letter to the Danbury Baptist (probably evangelicals) Association by Thomas Jefferson wherein he was assuring them that there would be no state dictated religion?

It's a curious thing though. Mikey's introductions are all about a family tradition of serving in the military and an affiliation with Reagan, coupled with his “I'm a Republican” line. Yet he seems to loathe the very conservatism Reagan embraced (pro-life, pro-family, pro-evangelicalism). What's up with that? How can you use, as your credentials, the very things you appear to abhor?

He speaks with angst against a “religious right” which Reagan embraced whole heartedly. He references Fox icons like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly with the same demeaning comments one would expect to see on Democratic Underground.

But he's GOP all the way, right?

Mikey doesn't like Rush Limbaugh much either. In spite of Rush's comments making Mikey the new poster boy for liberal victim hood. Rush did call him a pacifist, which Mikey sees as an insult apparently. But Rush went on to respond to a more troubling aspect of Mikey's comments:

“I personally don’t give a rat’s rear end what Hamas or Hezbollah or the Islamic Jihad or the al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades see in the United States military. I don’t care whether they like the US military or not. The goal of our military is not to make our enemies like us. I can’t believe I’m even having to point this out. The goal of our military is to kill these people before they kill us, Mikey, and our allies.”

Being called a pacifist, in my opinion, is not nearly as bad as being called an appeaser. The difference is a pacifist does what they do out of conscience. An appeaser does what he does out of cowardice.

Rush went on to make a very important point as well: Weinstein could never- not in a million years- convince a Hassan Nasrallah to drop his faith and practice at the door for the sake of keeping the American fighting machine off his back.

Weinstein, like many Christophobes, attacks the “religious right” with the classic historical blame game conspiracy accusation:

"Every single time radicalized Christianity has engaged the machinery of the state and the armed forces, we have ended up not with puddles and little streams, but with oceans and oceans of blood. I'm not just talking about the Holocaust or the Inquisition or the four Crusades, I'm not just talking about the Black Plague; it's the transition from Plan A to Plan B.

"In Plan A, evangelical Christians with a smile on their face will ask you to please, please, please accept their biblical world view of Jesus. The problem with that is, inevitably, Plan A morphs into Plan B. They stop asking so nicely, and then you have the Holocaust, the pogroms, the Inquisition ..."
Let me see, he's blaming Christianity in general for all of the above. Got it. Let's totally ignore the nuances of history while blaming the Jews for the death of Christ and the persecution of the early Christians, shall we?
The more I read and hear, the more I realize there's something very strange going on here. Why is Weinstein so up in arms over evangelicals in the military exercising their right to religious freedom and expression?

I was able to find copies of emails between Ted Haggard (another Weinstein nemesis) and Weinstein. I must say, for a guy who claims offense at “newish jokes” he didn't seem rattled by the one Haggard sent him.

Published at nonprophet.com, the email exchanges leave one wondering if a 747 did a flyby on the tarmac of Weinsteins' brain. He comes off looking, well, completely irrational in the glow of Haggard's courteous and well written emails.

Don't get me wrong, Haggard is no angel (not by any stretch). And he has paid a heavy price for playing fast and loose with his sexual addiction issue. However, it must be noted here that while Weinstein enjoys poking at Haggard's indiscretions, Haggard has never attacked Weinstein nor advocated that it be done.

And, not unexpectedly, Weinstein doesn't mention that Haggard “manned up” and went national with his confession and quest for forgiveness.

It isn't only Haggard that Weinstein attacks. Showing an utter lack of respect for the dead, Weinstein said of Falwell:

“The dead guy, Jerry Falwell- and I'm sorry, I'm very glad he's dead...he was a bad, bad man with regard to the Constitution...”

Draw your own conclusion on that one.

Weinstein also called James Dobson's group, Focus on the Family, something totally ridiculous: “Focus on the Fascists.” I guess that's no different than calling the ACLU the Anti-Christian Loopy Union.

Weinstein has his own attack dogs, however. And he doesn't hesitate to use them. A prime example is Jason Leopold who specializes in “outing” the evangelical conspiracy participants.

But what of Jason Leopold? With strong ties to truthout.org, Leopold's research has had at least one critic: Carl Rove.

It seems Leopold relied on some spurious sources when he claimed in one of his articles that Rove had been indicted in the Plume affair (truthout.org, May 13, 2006.) But the grand jury came and the grand jury went, with no indictment of Rove.

Of course, it was Leopold who was caught with his boxers around his knees as a result of fabricating information in a 2002 article for Salon.com; admitting to “getting it wrong” in pieces he wrote for Dow Jones; and having his own memoir canceled because of concerns about the accuracy of quotations.
It's pretty damn bad when you can't get your own memoir right!

In a 2005 Washington Post article Howard Kurtz writes about Leopold's memoir, “Off The Record.” Leopold came clean about his own seedy past of “lying, cheating and backstabbing” as well as admitting to cocaine use; serving time for larceny; and having battled mental illness throughout most of his life.

Other statements from Weinstein reveal even more. He claims that evangelical leaders have said to him:

“Jack Benny, Dr.Seuss, Einstein, the two million children under the age of twelve who perished in the holocaust, Anne Frank, all of them are burning eternally in the fires of hell, Mikey, because they rejected our Lord Jesus Christ...”

It's this hyperbole which calls Weinstein's legitimacy into question. He claims this was said to him by high ranking military leaders (would he offered names but perhaps he's afraid of a lawsuit). He also seems to think Christianity has ever taught that all children go to hell unless they are converted to Christianity.
Maybe he's confusing evangelicals with die-hard, pre-Vatican II, priests?

“Whenever the train leaves the station, which we've seen happen over the last 2,000 years, whenever a virulent form of any religion- in this case Christianity- has engaged the machinery of the state in direct contravention of the Constitution... we've seen the train leave the station and it goes to one town. It goes to slaughterville. Over and over again...we get oceans and oceans of blood. It's not just the show of a holocaust. Or the inquisition. Or the nine...crusades. Or the black death in 1348. Which started with the wiping out of 300 Jewish communities. It's all of those little spaces in between....And now we actually have to do something. This is NOT a Christian Jewish issue.”

Gee buddy, could've fooled me! Everything you mentioned had to do with Christians and Jews. Not a mention of the Islamic aggression against both Jews and Christians. Nary a mention of Hezbollah or Hamas or Al Queda.
Weinstein laments that his critics point out the obvious. But how else is it supposed to be looked at?
“Mikey's taking our warm, cuddly Jesus teddy bear away.”

He doesn't stop with animosity to a small narrow group of Christians. Zionist Christians also take a hit:

“We get it all the time (from evangelicals) 'we love you Jews and we love Israel. Why are you ' fighting us?' My wife has a great response to that. She calls it the first thanksgiving theory. Which is yes, of course they love Israel and the Jews to the same extent that the Pilgrims loved the turkey the night before the first thanksgiving. They're just fattening the herd for the slaughter, whatever they can do to start that big bar fight in the sky because their (evangelicals) perspective is 'we're tired of waiting for Jesus! We need to help Jesus out. Let's get Hezbollah going up against Israel and let's go into Iraq. Let's do whatever we can with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad . Let's get it going there! Let's whisper at that cowboy bar- at that cowboy at the far end of the bar- let's whisper something bad about him and go get the cowboy at the other end of the bar and get the bar fight going.'”

Is he seriously intimating that Bush went into Iraq to start an international bar fight with the hopes of bringing Jesus back?

Apparently so. Too bad his eschatology is screwed, but otherwise it's a rather entertaining conspiracy theory I must say.

He goes on by saying that Christians believe we'll be “raptured into the sky” when the fighting begins (I guess Weinstein doesn't realize theres disagreement on pre, post or mid tribulation rapture.)

“Remember: every Fundamentalist is an Evangelical. Not every Evangelical is a Fundamentalist.” I'm not sure what he means by that, other than it's a spin off from “every Muslim isn't a terrorist but every terrorist is a Muslim.” A phrase I'm sure Weinstein has heard.

Which tells me he considers both fundamentalists and evangelicals to be cut from the same cloth and possibly no different from Al Queda.

Weinstein sets the number of evangelical Christians in the military to be somewhere between 35-40% of the Armed services. Which means Mikey would like to take away the rights of the largest single group in the military structure today.

Is it me or does something seem skewed here?

This article began with a report about silliness. One guy, with a huge grudge and too much time on his hands decided that our troops shouldn't be reading their gun sights. How silly. But this isn't funny.
My father once told me that the most intolerant people in the world are those who demand your tolerance. Mikey Weinstein is demanding tolerance from everyone around him yet he would deny evangelical Christians in the military due tolerance to do it.

And given Weinstein's apparent sympathy to left-wing groups, writers, and sympathies for those who would attack our country, I wonder if there's not some other underlying agenda.
Pardon me while I get my own tin foil hat.
Sources:
http://www.wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=artGeneral.article_6
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/01/21/97981.html
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/press-releases/tpr_action.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n34_v113/ai_18940473/
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/weekly-watch/3-28-08/weeklywatch...
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_jason_le_080311_navy_chaplain_wh...
http://baptistpress.net/bpnews.asp?id=16462
http://books.google.com/books?id=becCI_Yv-zsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=WIT...
http://nonprophet.typepad.com/nonprophet/2005/12/mikey_weinstein.html
http://www.rogerwendell.com/proselytizing.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index.html
http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=2618
http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin_mag/articles/36-1/sentilles.html
http://palestinian.ning.com/forum/topics/weinstein-called-upon
http://www.jewsonfirst.org/weinstein.html
http://www.insider-magazine.com/ChristianMafia.htm
http://www.tricycle.com/blog/?p=1417
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mili_rel.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_1_123/ai_n16133178/
http://www.jewsingreen.com/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/29/lkl.ted.haggard/
http://www.tedhaggard.com/overview.htm
http://www.bomb-mp3.com/index.php?search=mikey+weinstein+ian+masters
http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/genera_jason_le_080311_navy_chaplain_...
http://books.google.com/books?id=becCI_Yv-zsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=WIT...
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/press-releases/tpr_action.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/national/12chaplains.html?_r=1
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/press-releases/tpr_action.html
http://www.hcdp.org/Repub2008.pdf
http://www.cjr.org/politics/jason_leopold_caught_sourceles.php
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3116.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1016-01.htm

The TSA New Guidelines Make me Long for the Good Old Days...

Has anyone read the newest guidelines for air travel? The TSA has put them on their website and to be honest, I am really beginning to resent the way this is being handled.

In June of 2001, I took a flight to Maryland out of DFW International and arrived at Dulles International in D.C. I can remember waiting to board, with hubby and son sitting next to me. We got to hug and say our goodbyes. Something that, just a few months later, would come to mean so much.

When I arrived at Dulles, my friends were there to pick me up. I didn't have to seek them outside. No, they were standing there just outside the boarding area. It was such a relief to see them there and to have company while waiting on the luggage.

It was even nicer going home. Hubby and I pre-arranged to meet at the TGI Fridays that was inside the airport terminal. After getting my luggage, we enjoyed a nice dinner before leaving for home.

I can go back farther than that, though. I can remember a time when nobody rummaged through your luggage. A time when elderly people were not expected to get out of their wheelchair or divest themselves of a walker to get on the plane. A time when the worst thing that happened in flight was the liver and onions.

But things are different now. Looking on the TSA website, the difference becomes startlingly apparent.

In the section “tips for the screening process” people are told basically what to expect. All of these are based on an “if” scenario. This is fine “if” you know it's unlikely it will happen to you. Otherwise, the procedures could become rather embarrassing.

“If a personal search is required you may choose to remain in the public area or go to a private area for your screening. If you refuse either option you will not be able to fly.”

Let what would be so embarrassing that a personal search might have to have an option to go into a “private screening area?”

“You should be offered a private screening before the beginning of a pat-down inspection if the pat-down will require the lifting of clothing and/or display of a covered medical device. “

This raises a few questions, for instance, would a person with a VNS implant have to lift their shirt and show their implanted device? Men with a VNS implant may not mind, but isn't it a wee intrusive to ask a female epileptic to show her breast region in order to prove there's an implant?

“You should be offered a disposable drape...” Holy cough test, Batman! This sounds more like a doctor's exam than an airport security check! So in other words, we're going to be required to possibly remove clothing? For a “pat down?” Exactly what part of the body are they intending to pat down?

Of course, the TSA is allowing you to bring along a friend, loved one, spouse, rabbi, priest, mullah, pet.... whatever you need to make you more comfortable while they strip you and pat you down in your disposable drapery.

Granny may ask for a chair to sit down at any time throughout the strip search and pat down.

You'll only be required to raise your arms as high as your body limitations allow. No Gestapo Gert will hold a gun to you and yell “herauf! Herauf!”

What if a person isn't offered a private screening? Personally, I would be very embarrassed. But, someone says, they wouldn't do this unless they have a reason. Remember the phrase in tip number one: if a personal search is required. Wouldn't this require some element of profiling? What would “require” a personal search?

There's another little TSA tip that to me spells an open invitation for terrorists:

“You may request a pat-down inspection in lieu of going through the metal detector or being handwanded. You do not need to disclose why you would like this option.”

Let me get this straight: A person can ask specifically to be patted down instead of going through a handwanding or metal detector and they need NOT say why!?

What's up with that?

In the 1986 edition of SUGERY MAGAZINE, an article about “rectal foreign body” recoveries cited an interesting array of things retrieved from people's rectums via surgical procedures. Among the items were: glass bottles and jars; a tube light bulb; various food items; an ax handle; a dull knife and knife sharpener; ice pick; curling iron; screwdriver; gold chain; 72-1/2 jewelers saw, etc.

Think that's bizarre? How do you think drug smugglers smuggle their wares in? And guess who has been taking tips from the drug smugglers?

A CBS news report (re: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml ) from Sept. 2009 disclosed that Al Queda has learned the benefits of rectal smuggling.

“Inside a Saudi palace, the scene was the bloody aftermath of an al Qaeda attack in August aimed at killing Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef, head of Saudi Arabia's counter terrorism operations.

To get his bomb into this room, Abdullah Asieri, one of Saudi Arabia's most wanted men, avoided detection by two sets of airport security including metal detectors and palace security. He spent 30 hours in the close company of the prince's own secret service agents - all without anyone suspecting a thing.

How did he do it?

Taking a trick from the narcotics trade - which has long smuggled drugs in body cavities - Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum.”

For those who don't get it, a “pat down” isn't a cavity search. And while the detectors didn't pick it up, neither would a pat down. Only a “cavity search” could possibly have detected it.

Is that going to be next?

I said it before, and I will say it again: we have to stop this incessant reactionary response to terrorism.

Unless we're interested in profiling.

Maybe that's what the TSA is going to do but is afraid to say. If that's the case, their website should put a woman in a niqab on their web page instead of an 80 year old gray haired granny with limited physical mobility.

There could be another solution: we can profile countries of origin. Fourteen nations are listed: Yemen, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Somalia, Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.

But what does that mean? “Profile countries of origin?” Does that mean they'll be the ones undergoing this scrutiny and not the rest of us? Or does it mean that someone will be just watching them more closely?

I have an idea: how about not letting anyone from these (and other suspect) countries into America at all?

Of course, the media is pumping up the support for this newest and most indignant intrusion into our privacy. Funny how we heard all negative stuff about the Patriot Act (which required you to have done something- or have some connection to terrorism- before your phone could be tapped, etc) yes we're not hearing a single squawk from the left about this one.

Possibly because, at least in terms of leaders in Washington, there's no problem?

Not long ago there was a major flack about some $550 million dollars to go for jets so that senior government officials could fly around doing their official whatevers. The story also reported that the:

"...Obama administration had sought $220 million to buy four passenger jets, including two that are currently being leased by the Air Force, to replace a fleet of older planes. Before leaving town for the August break, House lawmakers doubled the aircraft order to eight, at a total cost of $550 million."

Guess they weren't up for a good wanding.

The bottom line is simply this: we're being asked to give up more privacy than the Patriot Act could have ever asked us to forgo. We're being told, without any clear definition, that IF we're required to, we will end up having to wear a paper exam robe, allow a stranger to touch or at least gawk at, our personal, physical being. And if that isn't adding insult to injury, desperate terrorists may opt to forgo a good wanding in favor of a pat down- which may or may not detect dangerous objects.

We've already been divested of the safest shoes for air travel (it's more difficult to untie your leather shoes than to slip off loafers); we've already been given ample cause not to don all of our jewelry (instead we can trust it to the baggage handlers- yeah right).

Off with the belt buckles! Nay to the under wire bra! Pull those bobby pins out of your hair! And now, with the advent of the old pat-down, Buzz and his girlfriend, Barbie, will be asked to remove their body piercings ( http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/screening/index.shtm#1 ).

In the process of slowly eroding our rights instead of removing the privileges of the suspect group, there is one bright light. There could become a booming disposable booty industry:

“Disposable booties or slippers may be worn through the checkpoint to help protect your feet, but they must be disposed of prior to leaving the screening area.”

Yah, that's it. I'm going to get working on Disposable Designer Airport Booties...

Sigh. I'm longing for the good old days of air travel, where the biggest thing you worried about was getting air sick or the peanuts being stale.

Religious Rights and Wrongs:
When Practice Impedes Safety

The Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences has a new policy which states that nobody may cover their face while on any of their three campuses. This policy, which was instituted to ensure public safety, has come under fire from CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations.

According to CAIR spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, the policy, which he deems “strange” is one targeting Muslims. Of course, it could also target people who plan to wear masks to cover their identity for non-religious reasons, such as theft or assault. But Hooper doesn't stop to think about that.

Though College officials deny it, the 2009 arrest of Tarrek Mahanna does give one pause. The Boston Pharmacist was arrested in October 2009 for supplying material support for a terrorist attack what was to take place in a shopping mall. Mehanna is an American citizen and a graduate of the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. (re: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/us/22terror.html ).

Institutions who have had ties- regardless of how loosely connected- may feel a need to clamp down in order to offer a sense of safety to other students and personnel. The question remaining is, is this wrong? Does religious freedom make it impossible for other regulations to be instituted?

A Little History.
I am a member of an offshoot of the faith of the first settlers in the New Land. Attempting to escape persecution from the Church of England, some of the earliest colonists were Anabaptists, so called because they eschewed infant baptism (they rebaptised those who had received infant baptism).

Anabaptists, as well as my offshoot sect, the IFBs (Independent Fundamental Baptists) believe in a strict separation of church and state, a belief we got from those early settlers. But “freedom of religion” is not the same as “freedom FROM religion”, which seems to be the viewpoint of the ACLU and others, including some rabid atheists.

The Founding Fathers, when they penned the Constitution, honed in on two issues. The first issue is called “The Establishment Clause.” The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from creating or forcing or enforcing a “state religion” or from showing preference for one religion over another.

Over the years this has been misconstrued by those who fear the ACLU to mean that during Christmastime, there cannot be a Creche (Manger Scene) on public properties. This myth has been encouraged and perpetrated by the ACLU, with the help of liberal judges.

In fact, state governments, and even federal government, are not prohibited from celebrating a given holiday in accordance with the traditions of the day. Rammadan is celebrated at the White House and in State Capitals across America. Hanukkah is likewise celebrated (though this year, the White House did a deplorable job of it). Since Christmas is about Christ, a Creche is perfectly suited to the occasion. In spite of ACLU whining.

The other issue covered by the Founding Fathers is the free exercise of religion. The Free Exercise clause simply means that nobody's right to worship can be removed from them. But there's a quid pro quo here: free exercise of religion cannot violate other laws.

Constitutionally speaking, no one single right is more applicable than another. There are countless examples of the government intervening in religious groups wherein there's been a proven reason or an understandable purpose in exploring the group.

For example, the siege in Marion Utah involving the Addam Swapp polygamist sect involved government intervention during a stand off between Swapp, his followers, and the FBI/BATF. In this case, not only had Swapp et al broken the law regarding polygamy, they had also trespassed, blown up a Mormon meeting building, and were being investigated on accusations of child abuse.

Believing he was a prophet of God, Swapp directed breaking other established laws, particularly criminal codes. Should his religion have been a reasonable defense?

It doesn't have to be something as drastic however.

Back in 2002, a Florida woman, Sultaana Freeman, a Muslim, sued the Department of Highway Safety when her license was revoked. The reason for the revocation was that, while she had been allowed to pose in her niqab for prior license photos, the post-911 laws required she remove it for a current drivers' license.

Some argued that this was her “religious right”. Others argued that since she'd been allowed to keep it before, so should she be allowed to continue wearing the niqab for photos.

On the other hand, argued the State, this is what the law requires.

Personally, I think some things should be common sense. If I cannot get a drivers' license wearing a ski mask (hey, I might worship the giant snowbunny on my Sundays off) then a Muslima, who is making a choice to wear a niqab when a hijab would be just as modest according to Islam, shouldn't be able to hide her face, either.

As it turned out, Ms. Muslima (aka Sultaana Freeman, aka Sandra Keller) was a wanted woman who had been hiding under the niqab. As it would turn out, back in her “Christian” days, she married a Muslim man named Abdul Malik Freeman, converted to Islam and became a child abuser. Records show she was wanted for beating two twins in her care nearly to the point of death.

In 1999, Freeman pleaded guilty to aggravated battery and was sentenced to 18 months probation. The twins girls were subsequently removed from her care. And so Sultaana/Sandra forever became a convicted felon.

In this case, the niqab came in handy- until she went to the ACLU who went public, trying to garner sympathy.

But Colleges aren't governmental entities. And in this case, the college has every right to make it's policies for the benefit of ALL of it's students.

Neither the establishment nor the free exercise clause cover clothing or practice wherein such things contradict the “general welfare”of all citizens. Nor does it apply to private institutions.

Yes, I believe in freedom of religion, until that religion places those of all other faiths in possible danger or until it crosses established laws and rights of others.

Beginning in 1985, airplanes became one of the means by which terrorists (note: mostly Islamic ones) achieved certain goals. In some cases, as in the 1985 hijacking of Trans-World Airlines, the goal was to negotiate via hostage taking.

But more often, the goal had been to utilize terror by sending a message via explosion. Incidents included the 1986 explosion of a TWA flight from Greece, the 1988 Pan Am flight 103 explosion over Lockerbie, Scotland (an attempt which would be somewhat repeated, albeit failed, in 2006 (link here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/09/14/2009-09-14_british_cour... ); the UTA flight 772 explosion in 1989. These were the “successes.” If you can call murdering hundreds of unsuspecting travelers a “success”.

And of course, we can never forget 9-11. While no bombs were explicitly used, the box cutters needed and a f aux bomb designed to scare passengers into submission, were present.

There have also been failed attempts at terrorist acts on planes. Richard Reid is an example of how not to blow up a plane.

We have the depraved husband and wife team who used their infant's milk needs as a means of pulling off an over-the-water terrorist attack.

And now this failed attempt. In a kind of twisted way, it's almost funny and gives new meaning to the taunt “liar liar pants on fire”. But it isn't funny. Something isn't right. We Americans are spending our time reacting to each incident, growing ever fearful that we could offend someone and cautious to make sure that we strike that balance between safety and political correctness.

In the meantime, a seventy-year-old acquaintance of mine was practically strip searched at an airport, taken aside, treated like a criminal, and had her hypodermics AND her injection pens pitched in the trash. Never mind that she had both a letter (on letterhead) from her Endocrinologist; never mind that she had doctors' prescriptions for both items; never mind that she had it all in a neat little kit, with her glucometer; and never mind that she used a walker (I assume it's normal for terrorists to use them?)

No, she was now suspect. And over $250.00 of medicine and supplies went down the tube.

Of course, these tactics were lightened up a day or so later (do the terrorists know this?) But I have to ask the question: why is it that all we do when attempts happen is to become reactionary? We show panic, fear, and try to appear to remain calm by searching everyone and everything; by restricting good people while the ones we should be looking at slip under the radar.

Karen Kafadar (Mathematics Dept., University of Colorado-Denver) and Max D. Morris (Dept. of Statistics and Industrial Engineering, Iowa State University) have authored a paper on Data-Based Detection of Potential Terrorist Attacks on Airplanes.

The premise of the paper is that statistical algorithms should be used in calculating potential threats of this kind, and that because they're aberrations, which the use of airplanes (though more frequent in the past twenty or so years) certain qualifies under.

In this paper they assess the responses of government and airlines, particularly after 9-11. They note that some major changes have included: 1) allowing only ticketed passengers inside boarding zones; 2) screen carry on luggage more closely for potential weapons.

Of course, potential weapons changed between 9-11 and the baby bottle terrorist attempt. And it's even changed since then as well. Limitations as to how much fluid, including gel substances, has made travel for people with special medical and dietary needs more difficult.

They also note that there are some “hindsight” features worthy of a glance: thus far, none have been American Citizens; all have spent some measure of time inside America; they all purchased one-way tickets with cash; all had connections to a particular foreign country.

Kafadar and Morris point out that, statistically, the odds are that this combination could apply to five out of every eighty passengers.

I realize there's a no-fly list that was ignored this last time. But I wonder: who makes that list? And is everyone who needs to be on it, on it? Somehow I don't think so!

Another problem is that a person may leave an airport in one country and never be examined again. For example, this last guy left out of Langos, was cleared and allowed through Amsterdam. Was he checked in Amsterdam? Nope.

Phillip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International, also points out that here was a fellow who bought an expensive ticket in cash, in a country different from his destination, traveling during Christmas without any luggage. Isn't there a red flag there?

It is interesting to note that El Al, the Israeli airlines, has not had a single incident in over twenty years. What are they doing that we're not doing?

Aside from the continual presence of Sky Marshals, they do the unfathomable in today's politically correct world: they profile.

El Al doesn't place security in the hands of the airport, either. Instead, they rely on “secret service”personnel who are specifically trained in detecting and handling would-be terrorist suspects.

They ask the tough, albeit invasive, questions:

“Where's your luggage? You're going to (destination) and no luggage?”

Of course, with our airlines charging $25.00 a bag for anything beyond one carry on bag, this question would be nullified almost immediately. Americans are nothing if not resourcefully cheap!

When Richard Reid was stopped by El Al, it wasn't about his luggage, it was about his “looks”. El Al wasn't concerned about lawsuits, and neither were the people handling security. They went through everything he carried and wore. They also sat a Sky Marshal next to him.

Security is extremely tight at El Al. There are three “rings” of security through which one must pass. Cars get inspected even before they come inside the terminal areas. Once inside, armed guards also inspect your vehicle. And then there's more armed guards watching you as you come inside.

This doesn't cover the undercover security who can pull you over for “acting” suspicious. There's no last minute baggage check in and no curbside baggage check in. Glances into your bags are not random, either.

Okay, so this is inconvenient as hell. And to be honest, I can't help but see our attempt to adopt an El Al approach as a burgeoning disaster of it's own. A million possibilities for airport bungles come to mind if we stop there. We would have to do the one thing El Al does which we are afraid to do: PROFILE.

Efraim Sneh, Israels Minister of Transportation put it this way where profiling is concerned:

“We have to secure our passengers, our airplanes, and words do not scare us. Bombs do.”

But this requires the Israeli mindset of life being more important than an individuals “rights”. Israeli thinking tends towards the general welfare (something our Constitution claims is a job of the government) as opposed to protecting individual “rights” as the sole interest of our government.

Rafi Ron, former director of Security at Tel Aviv airport states that profiling is of the utmost importance:

"We believe that profiling is a very important concept in aviation security. Finding a bomb is not such an easy thing. Bombs don’t look any more like a black, round thing with a smoking fuse coming out of them. They take…almost every possible shape. They are created out of so many type of materials that it has become extremely difficult to find the bomb."

There's something our country is unwilling to do, and that's profile for specific persons. But I wonder, if every person who had bombed a plane or tried to, had been Southern Baptists with the last names of Smith, Jones and Johnson who came from the deep south, would there be such a hesitancy to profile?

In both successful as well as failed attempts, the perpetrators all shared one thing in common: Islam. Converts had adopted Islamic names as opposed to their birth names or in conjunction with their birth names.

Things like the absence of luggage can be altered. Changing how they purchase tickets can be changed. But will a Muslim hide their name? Would a convert (called a “revert” because Islam teaches that we're all born Muslim anyway) necessarily change his or her name?

According to the website, Islam Online, Islam does not require a name change. However, it does say that a Muslim should have a “good name.” A convert should only change their name, so we're told, if the name has a bad meaning attached to it. I suppose if you're name was Vlad, you would want to change it- whether you converted to Islam or not.

But then, why do so many converts to Islam change their names?

Perhaps it's for theological reasons more than social inclusiveness. Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, President of the Fiqh Council of North America put it this way in his fatwah (judicial ruling) on the topic of name changes:

“Islam emphasizes that Muslims should have good names and give good names to their children. It is reported in a hadith that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, 'You will be called on the Day of Resurrection by your names and the names of your fathers, so have good names.' (Reported by Abu Dawud)

During the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when people used to accept Islam, he would not require all people to change their names. He used to change only those names that carried wrong meanings or un-Islamic ideas and concepts. The Prophet's wife `A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said about the Prophet, 'He used to change bad names.' (Reported by at-Tirmidhi)

...

One can only change one's own name, but one cannot change the family name or name of one's parents, unless they are alive and accept the change. So the new Muslims should change their first names, if they contain wrong or bad meanings. As far as their last names are concerned they should not be changed, because it is also forbidden in Islam to take the name of someone other than one's own biological father. Allah says in the Qur'an, [Proclaim their real parentage. That will be more equitable in the sight of Allah. And if you do not know their fathers, then they are your brothers in the faith…] (Al-Ahzab 33: 5).”

Basically this means that if your parents say okay, or if they're dead, you can change the entire name. But you can, if you become Muslim, change your first or middle name to something Islamic.

One thing to bear in mind before rushing to encourage names as a profiling tool: Islam would allow you to use the Islamic name as an unofficial alias name without legally changing your actual name.

This makes pre-screening of those who fly into or out of the United States essential. Ultimately it would whittle down to Muslims, period. No planes for Muslims, whether they come into our country or plan to fly outside of it. Ibn, Abu and Hakema would be stuck riding the bus, boat, train, car, or buggy. No planes. It would mean not allowing any Muslim person to work inside an airport (there go the keychain concessions!)

A radical proposition, I admit.

El Al has it right. And if we were prone to following them without this crazy political correctness, we wouldn't be reduced to radical solutions like the aforementioned no fly list based on name and religion. But because we refuse to profile; because we randomly check bags and only wand down grandmothers and confiscate hypodermics from proven diabetics; we're going to continue to stay at high risk until we're forced into becoming radical in our protection of our fellow Americans.

If we do not stop placing security in the hands of non-professionals and if we continue to refuse to use psychological profiling (because it's considered too close to actual profiling), then we'll start seeing our corporate rights- the general welfare kind- eroded beyond recognition.

Turkey has been trying to be an associate member of the European Union since 1987 and one would think they'd have a clue by now that they're not wanted. What's peculiar is that the EU (and it's offshoot groups) have strong ties to Turkey, both historically as well as ideologically.

So, what's the hold up? The new EU President, Herman Van Rompuy, has his reasons for opposing welcoming Turkey into the fold. The main one being that Turkey never has been, is not currently, nor will it ever become, part of "Europe."

"The universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigor with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey," Van Rompuy said back in 2005.

His stance hasn't changed, nor should it. Especially in light of more recent events which clearly show a disrespect for Christianity and Christians.

It would seem that the new headquarters for the Turkish campaign to join the EU is a church which was confiscated from Turkey's Orthodox Christians.

Though viewed by the outside world as a "secular Muslim state", when Erdoğan’s AK Party came to power, the Islamitization of the populace began to take hold in a way not seen in centuries.

-More than half of all Turks oppose meetings by religious groups other than Islamic ones;

-59% said non-Muslims shouldn't be allowed to hold meetings;

and

-49% said they would oppose any political group which "accepted" non-Muslims.

This is the polar opposite of what is happening in Europe, where Muslims in general have been well received for decades and where they're vested with the same rights as everyone else.

The building in question was confiscated in the 1990's from an Orthodox Christian group. It had been used for worship and education purposes (a school).

So what is the point of mentioning this now?

To illustrate the hypocrisy of Islamic states. Turkey, secular or not, still imposes Shari'ah by disinfranchising those who are not Muslim. And isn't it the cockish irony that the very building housing their headquarters is a memorial to that hypocrisy?

Some people think that Christmas is not under attack. Well pardon me, but isn't it rather grinch-ish to chastise and threaten suit against a small town that opts to donate $200.00 to help a local church buy critters for their Christmas manger scene?

As if the ACLU has nothing better to do, like defending terrorists' rights or something?

I'm getting tired of the social double standard. People who want to remove the vestages of CHRIST from CHRISTmas, have no qualms about taking that day off; enjoying the shopping sales; winning give-aways, etc., that exist because of the existence of Christmas.

Grant you, it's become quite secularized, but if you do not want to see the CHRIST part of CHRISTmas, to where you're phobic about the presence of anything CHRISTian in it, then please, don't celebrate even the secularized version of it, ok?

Instead, how about working that day so those who are Christian can take the day off.

How about NOT ordering the trees, holly, wreaths, etc., and letting only Christians handle the marketing demands? Oh yeah, then it would be fewer trees and more Creche's selling in stores. But hey, there could be the "christian only" aisle, kind of like the Kosher and Halal sections they have in Target stores.

I don't celebrate Hanukkah because I'm not Jewish. Nor do I complain about Menorah's being lit, or dreidles being sold on shelves in the toy department.

I just let those of the Jewish faith celebrate.

So how about this: ACLU and other atheists or people who get upset about CHRISTmas- stop celebrating it! Just, stop with the trees, presents, etc. Treat it like every other day and let us Christians have it back.

Seeing as how you don't want it commercialized.

“My son Noah was born with a rare spinal condition called Chiari Malformation. He has already had two surgeries and numerous doctor visits before his second birthday. In addition there are 3 other children in the home with medical needs. The flexible spending account doesn't even cover all the expenses we incur as a family, but the tax break sure helps make it easier.”

This story, and others like it, can be heard across the country. People who work are able to set aside money into what is called an FSP (Flexible Spending Plan or Account) through their employer which allows them to set aside a certain amount of their pay, usually between $1500 and $5000 annually, for medical expenditures not covered by whatever medical insurance the person carries. The fund is tax-free.

The latest proposal in health care reform would place a cap on how much a person can actually set aside in their tax-free FSP.

Many employers already have a cap imposed, usually the limit one can contribute to their account is maxed out at $5,000 per year. And most people would be unaffected by the proposed cap of $2500.00 per year anyway. So what's all the flack about?

The flack is about those individuals with chronic conditions and people with special needs, in particular families with special needs children, who's educational and health needs are unable to be met by state, federal or local agencies.

Approximately 35 million Americans use an FSP. The average amount in an FSP is low, generally $1500.00 per year for most people. Originally the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wanted to eliminate the FSP totally, claiming it (along with other cuts to medical services) would fund a universal health care initiative proposed by Congress and supported by the President.

Considered a non-profit think tank” the CBPP was founded by Robert Greenstein in 1981 and is supported by donations from some heavy-hitting leftist groups, including the Democracy Alliance. For those unfamiliar with the Democracy Alliance, they're a left-wing organization with interests in political activism and are supported by leftist activists such as George Soros, Norman Lear, and Peter Lewis, notable member of the AFL-CIO, Sierra Club and Emily's List, as well as being a donor to Moveon.org.

And all of the above helped elect Obama.

The political Ptolemies are coming out of the woodwork on this one!

But what happens if a person has to go over $2500 in their FSP? Say, to $3500.00 per year? At a 15% tax (on monies over the $2500 cap) the person would be taxed an additional $793.00 per year.

So then, Noah's Mom and Dad, who might otherwise be able to pay for transporting their son to the Chiari Institute, a hospital specializing in the surgical and other needs of people with Chiari Malformation, would have to forgo this if the cost of transportation and lodging is more than $2500.00, or else pay the Jizya tax (oops) I mean the federal tax on any monies in their FPS over the $2500.00 cap.

In other words, under the Obama plan, the neediest will be taxed on money they earned and set aside to help their children, themselves if need be, or an elderly relative in their care.

Another group hard hit by this will be pre-retirement diabetics. Retirees over the age of 65 will not be affected because Medicare often covers diabetic supplies, depending on the type of Medicare and if you have a supplement insurance.

But people in my age bracket would not have this safety net. We're too young for Medicare, hence too young for any Medicare supplementary insurances. There is an assumption (and the President has made it twice now) that diabetes is preventable. Apparently he's never heard of Type 1 diabetes. I dare him to look Mary Tyler Moore in the face and tell her that it's “always preventable.”

For those of us who do not qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, diabetic supplies can be difficult to afford without an FSP. Even with insurance, there is the issue of meeting deductibles, which for the diabetic tend to be higher because it's a chronic condition.

What I do not understand is, why people who work hard and are paying for the needs of their loved ones out of their hard-earned money are being penalized for doing so. There is no cap at the present time, this is true. But states, employers and even local municipalities have often imposed a cap, albeit caps which are not nearly as low as the one proposed in the national health care debate.

I wonder what it is about the elderly and the disabled that they seem to be the target of this administration and it's supporters?

The list of the inductees to the Obama Medical Taxation Hall of Fame is quite disturbing and includes over $22 billion dollars in fees for drug manufacturers (stocking up on Insulin here...); over $19 billion in fees for medical device manufacturers (durable medical goods, such as oxygen machines- HOLD YOUR BREATH, GRANNY!!!!)

And an increased tax on cosmetic surgery, which may not be bad if it were limited to starlets, but what about people who need cosmetic surgery after skin cancer removal or after being disfigured by accident or fire?

If this health care plan passes, Americans will be forced into being “compassionate” without the option to chose with whom, when and how we are compassionate. The government will dictate that decision for us.

And while the government does this, it will enact a Robinhood in reverse that may place other lives in danger and suffer the quality of life for many Americans who are more than willing to earn the money for their medical expenditures.

http://www.savemyflexplan.org
http://www.chiariinstitute.com/

Rosie O'Donnell, that bastion of intelligentsia said it openly in the wake of 9-11:

"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have a separation of church and state. We're a democracy here."

Yes, we all must be on our guard against those Christian terrorists trying to blow up buildings as they yell “Jesus Ackbar!”

It sounds silly, but there are actually people who justify the events of 9-11 by trying to compare Christians who do bad, even evil deeds, to a Muslim who practices Jihad.

So let's take a look at the two shall we? And maybe we can come to some better, less childlike conclusions.

What is a Christian
To begin with, we have to get a clear definition of what a Christian is or is not. A Christian, by definition, is a follower of Christ. The word was a derogatory term, first used in Antioch, to label those who converted to becoming “Christ followers.” The reason it was considered derogatory was because the word meant “little Christ”, often said with a sneer or a snarl, much as one might call a grown man “little man.”

What makes a Christian a Christian, by definition, is their faith and body of doctrine. First is the profession of faith with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, usually followed by a Believers' baptism. And while denominations may vary as to when these things occur and in which order, there's still the ultimate confession and the desire to “be like Christ.”

For several years there were bracelets floating around which sported the letters WWJD, or What Would Jesus Do. For most people, it was a fad that could be fun for some and annoying for the non-Christian. But overall, it did force the conversation: what WOULD Jesus do?

A Christian, a follower of Christ, knows we're told to obey the laws of the land as long as said law doesn't cause us to personally do that which is repugnant to God. For example: where the law of the land allows abortion, we can verbalize against it; protest peacefully; and even petition the courts for legal changes.

What we cannot

do, is take the law into our own hands. Only- and I do mean ONLY- if the law required the Christian woman to get a forced abortion does she have the right to take whatever action is necessary to protect her unborn child. And that likely would not entail shooting an abortion doctor.

So a Christian is one who is required, in their own book, to respect the laws of the land. Does that mean all Christians do? Some don't. The man who shot George Tiller clearly didn't and he is condemned for it. But there is a UNIVERSAL body of teaching, even within the staunchly prolife Catholic church which teaches against “eye for an eye”.

In the shooters mind, however, it wasn't about an “eye for an eye.” Scott Roeder, however twisted he may seem, had a reason which made sense to him and, if you think about it, doesn't have to be a “Christian” idea:

"Because of the fact pre-born children's lives were in imminent danger, this was the action I chose."

Roeder was correct. The lives of unborn children were in imminent danger from Dr. Tiller, since he performed only abortions. No, it doesn't give Roeder the right to kill Dr. Tiller. But Roeder wouldn't have to be a “Christian” to draw his conclusion. ANY Prolife person could easily draw the same conclusion, be they Jewish, Atheist, or Buddhist.

The problem was in Roeders' decision on how to react to the problem. There's a laundry list of things he could have done- and should have done- including getting good counseling for his building anger at Tiller.

Had he received some good, New Testament counseling, it's highly unlikely Tiller would be dead today:

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Romans 12:19

“Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?'” Matthew 26:52-54

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Romans 13:1-14

“Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil.” Ephesians 4:26-27

The God of Christianity, Jesus Christ, clearly taught his followers a way of peace, and that it's not our place to carry out our own vengeance on others.

What Is A Muslim?
By definition, a Muslim is a person who surrenders to Allah. Many people will argue that Islam does not teach these violent acts which have been going on, around the world, since the 1970's. And it makes sense to say that most Muslims are not performing these acts. But there seems very little doubt that there's enough violence encouraged by Allah in the Koran to argue that it could easier to misinterpret the Koran than to misinterpret the New Testament.

To understand the problem of why it is many Muslims do not accept terrorism while others do, one has to understand the writing of the Koran and it's timeline division. The first period, known as the Meccan period, was written at a time when Islam was new, when Mohammed had little, if any, power. And when they were trying to accumulate new converts.

During this time, the early Sura's (verses) entreated the Muslim to ask “the people of the book” (Jews and Christians) about matters of faith. This was a period of tolerance on the part of Mohammed and his followers; a time when Jihad was a personal struggle for greater spirituality and to be more pleasing to Allah.

The Medina period, which came after the rejection of Islam by Jews and Christians, was not as nice a period. By this time, Mohammed had amassed a rather large following and had made some in-roads into the cultures around him.

It was during the time in Medina, when Mohammed and his followers were experiencing starvation, that they began raiding caravans. This didn't go over so well with the locals- as one can imagine. Passages written during the Medina period tend to be more violent, less tolerant, and generally more full of edicts to do acts of violence against the “enemies” of Allah.

The above is by no means detailed, but it provides a general backdrop and explains why some (a sizable hunk) of Muslims read into the Q'ran to commit acts of terror: it's hard to tell which period is which (unless one has a Q'ran that breaks it down) and unless one discounts the passages which command the Muslim to attack non-Muslims.

The below verses come from the Q'ran and are often cited by those who promote acts of terrorism:

Quran 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

Quran 9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's cause; they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."

Quran 8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."

Quran 8:65 "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding."

Quran 9:38 "Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah's Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place."

Quran 47:4 "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives.

Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."

"Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Sura 48.29)

"If you do not go to war, He will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men." (Sura 9.39)

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9.73)

All of the above verses were written during the Medina period. One could say this shouldn't matter. But it does, and mainly because of the principle of substitution:

“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?” (Sura 2:106)

It's very important to note that this passage was written during the Medina period, which means the passage was later and explanatory. Basically it's saying that anything written during the Meccan period and which deals with a specific issue is null and that this new revelation given at the Medina period takes it's place.

Encouraging Terrorism?
In order to support the idea that Christians are terrorists, or that their book condones terrorism in any way, one has to find passages within the New Testament which condone acts of terrorism. The fact is, there are no such passages in the New Testament texts.

A Christian isn't following their God, Jesus, when they break the law by imbibing in what can be taken as a terrorist act. Certain passages have been cited by Christianity's detractors as “evidence” that Christ encouraged terrorism.

Two passages in the New Testament which are use are found in Luke chapter nineteen and Matthew chapter ten:

“I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:26-27)

Unfortunately, most detractors of Christianity seldom read the bible. When one turns to Luke 19, one finds Christ telling a parable (a story with a message) about a wealthy land owner. Within the context of the parable, Christ is telling his audience what the landowner said. This is not a case of Christ telling His audience to bring his enemies to Him and slay them.

"Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35).

Again, the passage isn't advocating violence. Please note that it doesn't say to use a sword to slay your family. The fact that Christ says that He, Christ, was “sent to set” families against one another is indicative of this not having anything to do with killing people.

If one reads the passage in the context of a chapter, one finds that Christ isn't talking about a sword of violence, rather, a sword of division in the context of faithfulness to Him and His message. The division, we're told, is a natural outcome of rejecting the religion of one's birth to follow Christ.

If you don't believe this happens, talk to Abdul Rahman who, in 2006, became internationally known when an Afghani court sentenced him to death because he converted from Islam to Christianity. And he isn't alone, either.

As a convert to Christianity myself, when I left the religion of my birth it wasn't well received. When I became a born again Christian, I experienced familial shunning as well as the shunning of people who had been close friends. A natural outcome of a decision to follow Christ and yes, he warned that this could happen.

So you ask, what has all of this to do with terrorism? Could you please name any instance in modern history where a person who rejected Christianity was ever given the death penalty for so doing? Can you point to any passage in the New Testament which says to kill those who reject Christ?

Conclusion:
Islam certainly has the potential for breeding terrorists, if for no other fact that their holy book doesn't impose contextural limits in those passages talking about slaying the infidel. The New Testament does not.
Would a Christian (a genuine follower of Christ) resort to terrorist acts in order to obtain a desired goal?

“Christian terrorist” is an oxymoron. The Christian is to attempt to be a peacemaker. They're also to follow the law of the land (which omits terrorist acts as a means of dealing with issues.) Also:

"Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath" (Romans 12:19).

"It is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord." (Romans 12:19).

"It is mine to avenge; I will repay" (Hebrews 10:30)

"Overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21)

"He who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law" (Romans 13:8)

Comparing these passages- known by nearly all Christians- with the passages from the Koran on how to deal with enemies (in particular the Medina period, which supplanted the more peaceful Meccan period).

Is this to say ALL Muslims favor terrorism? No. Clearly that isn't the case.

But what is clear is that, if one compares the books, a person is far less likely to become a terrorist as a Christian than if they're Muslim, especially if they do a literal reading of their scriptures.

Christian terrorist? An oxymoron. Islamic terrorist? Well, there's a reason why the Taliban, Al Queda, The Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamic terrorist groups exist and kill without reservation. Maybe it's because their source book makes it manditory.