Christians have been persecuted since the crucifixion of Jesus. Worldwide Christian persecution is still rampant and must be stopped. The USA was founded on freedom of religion. Yet even here in the USA we are hounded, chastised, litigated, persecuted, even killed. It is time to stand up for what is right. It is time to stand up for God. You can either love God, or you can go to Hell. - not an angry statement; just a fact. Lack of faith condemns you, not me.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Friday, September 13, 2013
Student told not to write about God as her idol
Student told not to write about God as her idol
Lord forgive them, for the leadership at Memphis’ Lucy Elementary clearly knows not what it does. A 10-year-old girl wrote what her mother describes as a “cute” presentation for a class assignment to discuss who she sees as her idol. When she chose the Lord Almighty, her teacher demanded a more appropriate idol, like, er … Michael Jackson?
And then when Erin chose God, the teacher could have just shrugged it off as a cute choice, even if it made her uncomfortable. Instead, she turned it into an issue — and then signed off on a choice of an entertainer whose relationship with young children was suspicious enough to provoke prosecution.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/12/video-student-told-not-to-write-about-god-as-her-idol/
Lord forgive them, for the leadership at Memphis’ Lucy Elementary clearly knows not what it does. A 10-year-old girl wrote what her mother describes as a “cute” presentation for a class assignment to discuss who she sees as her idol. When she chose the Lord Almighty, her teacher demanded a more appropriate idol, like, er … Michael Jackson?
“But my teacher said I couldn’t write about God. She said It has something to do with God and God can’t be my idol,”Students have their First Amendment rights to pray, discuss, and occasionally write about their religious beliefs, especially in a class assignment that uses religious terminology and practically begs for a faith-based response. Or did the teacher not know the definition of “idol” before giving the assignment to the class?
And then when Erin chose God, the teacher could have just shrugged it off as a cute choice, even if it made her uncomfortable. Instead, she turned it into an issue — and then signed off on a choice of an entertainer whose relationship with young children was suspicious enough to provoke prosecution.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/12/video-student-told-not-to-write-about-god-as-her-idol/
Catholic priest hospitalized after acid attack
By DAR ES SALAAM
A Roman Catholic priest was hospitalized on Friday after acid was thrown at him in Zanzibar, police said, a month after two British teenage girls were victims of a similar acid attack there.
The incident in the semi-autonomous, mainly Muslim islands of Tanzania follows warnings by President Jakaya Kikwete that religious tension threatens peace in the nation of 45 million people.
Police spokesman Mhina said Joseph had been attacked on leaving an internet cafe.
"He sustained burns in his face and shoulders. The acid burnt through his shirt," Mhina told Reuters by phone.
Mhina said the priest was admitted to a hospital for emergency treatment.
Two Christian leaders were killed earlier this year in separate attacks and there have been arson attacks on churches.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/13/us-tanzania-zanzibar-acid-idUSBRE98C0RY20130913?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=22
A Roman Catholic priest was hospitalized on Friday after acid was thrown at him in Zanzibar, police said, a month after two British teenage girls were victims of a similar acid attack there.
The incident in the semi-autonomous, mainly Muslim islands of Tanzania follows warnings by President Jakaya Kikwete that religious tension threatens peace in the nation of 45 million people.
Police spokesman Mhina said Joseph had been attacked on leaving an internet cafe.
"He sustained burns in his face and shoulders. The acid burnt through his shirt," Mhina told Reuters by phone.
Mhina said the priest was admitted to a hospital for emergency treatment.
Two Christian leaders were killed earlier this year in separate attacks and there have been arson attacks on churches.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/13/us-tanzania-zanzibar-acid-idUSBRE98C0RY20130913?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=22
Monday, September 9, 2013
US Air Force punishing Christians for standing by their beliefs
Christian Airman Punished by Lesbian Commander Faces Possible Court Martial
By Clash Daily
Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk, a Christian serving in the Air Force whose unit is now commanded by a lesbian was relieved of duty for refusing his commander’s order to say he supports gay marriage.
Despite the fact that earlier this year the Pentagon said they would never court-martial a service member for their Christian faith, they have taken the first steps to possibly court-martial Monk.
In August, Monk expected a routine meeting with this attorney and an Air Force investigator to take a statement but instead was read his Miranda rights.
All Monk is saying is that he believes he’s being punished because of his traditional Christian beliefs.
Monk explained in a statement to Breitbart News, “I immediately got the sense that this was a retaliation against me for coming forward with my religious discrimination complaint.”
Monk was disheartened by what he believes is a retaliatory and vindictive act by his commander.”
We now see what is happening to Christians under President Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. This appears to be an intimidation tactic to send a message to other Christians in the military that you better not speak up when we violate your religious liberty.
The Obama-Hagel military leadership is not officially court-martialing Christians for sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ, but you will be punished and might even face a court martial if you stand by the principles of your Christian faith when you are serving in uniform.
A court martial is a criminal prosecution in the military. Depending on the crime, punishments can range from reduction in rank and withholding pay to dishonorable discharge from the military or even imprisonment
The Family Research Council is collecting signatures for a petition to the secretary of the Air Force, calling upon him not to punish Sergeant Monk for refusing to compromise his Christian beliefs.
http://clashdaily.com/2013/09/lesbians-attack-christian-airman-punished-lesbian-commander-faces-possible-court-martial/#zWtZRyRLjMt8VDwf.99
By Clash Daily
Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk, a Christian serving in the Air Force whose unit is now commanded by a lesbian was relieved of duty for refusing his commander’s order to say he supports gay marriage.
Despite the fact that earlier this year the Pentagon said they would never court-martial a service member for their Christian faith, they have taken the first steps to possibly court-martial Monk.
In August, Monk expected a routine meeting with this attorney and an Air Force investigator to take a statement but instead was read his Miranda rights.
All Monk is saying is that he believes he’s being punished because of his traditional Christian beliefs.
Monk explained in a statement to Breitbart News, “I immediately got the sense that this was a retaliation against me for coming forward with my religious discrimination complaint.”
Monk was disheartened by what he believes is a retaliatory and vindictive act by his commander.”
We now see what is happening to Christians under President Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. This appears to be an intimidation tactic to send a message to other Christians in the military that you better not speak up when we violate your religious liberty.
The Obama-Hagel military leadership is not officially court-martialing Christians for sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ, but you will be punished and might even face a court martial if you stand by the principles of your Christian faith when you are serving in uniform.
A court martial is a criminal prosecution in the military. Depending on the crime, punishments can range from reduction in rank and withholding pay to dishonorable discharge from the military or even imprisonment
The Family Research Council is collecting signatures for a petition to the secretary of the Air Force, calling upon him not to punish Sergeant Monk for refusing to compromise his Christian beliefs.
http://clashdaily.com/2013/09/lesbians-attack-christian-airman-punished-lesbian-commander-faces-possible-court-martial/#zWtZRyRLjMt8VDwf.99
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Bearing False Witness: Christian woman sentenced to death for being Christian
As her religion faces persecution across the Middle East, a Christian woman explains why she faces hanging in Pakistan for the crime of ‘blasphemy’
By ASIA BIBI
“I’m innocent! It’s not true! I didn’t insult the Prophet!”
More and more people join the crowd as they push me towards the home of the village headman. I recognize the house — it’s the only one that has a garden with grass growing in it. They throw me to the ground. The village imam speaks to me: “I’ve been told you’ve insulted our Prophet. You know what happens to anyone who attacks the holy Prophet Mohammed. You can redeem yourself only by conversion or death.”
“I haven’t done anything! Please! I beg you! I’ve done nothing wrong!”
The qari with his long, well-combed beard, turns to Musarat and the three women who were there on the day of the falsa harvest.
“Did she speak ill of Muslims and our holy Prophet Mohammed?”
“Yes, she insulted them,” replies Musarat, and the others join in:
“It’s true, she insulted our religion.”
“If you don’t want to die,” says the young mullah, “you must convert to Islam. Are you willing to redeem yourself by becoming a good Muslim?”
Sobbing, I reply:
“No, I don’t want to change my religion. But please believe me, I didn’t do what these women say, I didn’t insult your religion. Please have mercy on me.”
I put my hands together and plead with him. But he is unmoved.
“You’re lying! Everyone says you committed this blasphemy and that’s proof enough. Christians must comply with the law of Pakistan, which forbids any derogatory remarks about the holy Prophet. Since you won’t convert and the Prophet cannot defend himself, we shall avenge him.”
He turns on his heel and the angry crowd falls on me. I’m beaten with sticks and spat at. I think I’m going to die. Then they ask me again:
“Will you convert to a religion worthy of the name?”
“No, please, I’m a Christian, but I beg you . . . ”
And they go on beating me with the same fury as before.
I was barely conscious and could hardly feel the pain of my wounds by the time the police arrived. Two policemen threw me in their van, to cheers from the angry crowd, and a few minutes later I was in the police station in Nankana Sahib.
In the police chief’s office they sat me down on a bench. I asked for water and compresses for the wounds on my legs, which were streaming with blood. A young policeman threw me an old dishcloth and spat out at me:
“Here, and don’t get it everywhere.”
One of my arms really hurt and I thought it might be broken. Just then I saw the qari come in with Musarat and her gang. With me sitting there they told the police chief that I insulted the Prophet Mohammed. From outside the police station I could hear shouts:
“Death to the Christian!”
After writing up the report the policeman turned and called to me in a nasty voice:
“So what have you got to say for yourself?”
“I’m innocent! It’s not true! I didn’t insult the Prophet!”
Immediately after I’d protested my innocence I was manhandled into the police van and driven away. During the journey I passed out from pain and only came back to myself as we were arriving at Sheikhupura prison, where I was thrown into a cell.
Since that day I haven’t left prison.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/sentenced_to_death_for_sip_of_water_7zwT2vBrUGqhDzasfQxkKK/3
Monday, August 26, 2013
Pentagon Labels Founding Fathers, Conservatives and Christians as Extremists
By Todd Starnes
George Washington would not be welcome in the modern U.S. military. Neither would Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, according to Department of Defense training documents that depict the Founding Fathers as extremists and conservative organizations as “hate groups.”
The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute training guide was obtained by Judicial Watch under a Freedom of Information Act Request. It was acquired from the Air Force but originated from the Pentagon.
“This document deserves a careful examination by military leadership,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Fox News. “Congress needs to conduct better oversight and figure out what the heck is going on in our military.”
Included in the 133-pages of lesson plans is a student guide entitled “Extremism.”
The DOD warns students to be aware “that many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights"
Under a section titled “Extremist Ideologies,” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”
“It’s disturbing insight into what’s happening inside Obama’s Pentagon,” Fitton told Fox News. “The Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism.”
The Pentagon did not return telephone calls seeking comment on the training materials.
The training guide warned that participation in groups that are regarded as extremist organizations is “incompatible with military service and is, therefore prohibited.”
“It’s craziness,” Fitton said. “It’s political correctness run amok.”
The training documents also focus on those who cherish individual liberty.
It’s not the first time the military has been caught using training materials that depict conservatives and Christians as extremists.
In April Fox News obtained an email sent by a lieutenant colonel at Fort Campbell to three dozen subordinates warning them to be on the lookout for any soldiers who might be members of “domestic hate groups” like the FRC and the American Family Association.
In a separate incident, an Army training instructor listed Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism – along with Al Qaeda and Hamas.
The same Army spokesman said the training session was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army.”
Fitton told Fox News the military seems to be having a lot of "isolated incidents" and it appears the Pentagon is sending a message to Christians.
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/pentagon-labels-founding-fathers-conservatives-as-extremists.html
George Washington would not be welcome in the modern U.S. military. Neither would Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, according to Department of Defense training documents that depict the Founding Fathers as extremists and conservative organizations as “hate groups.”
The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute training guide was obtained by Judicial Watch under a Freedom of Information Act Request. It was acquired from the Air Force but originated from the Pentagon.
“This document deserves a careful examination by military leadership,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Fox News. “Congress needs to conduct better oversight and figure out what the heck is going on in our military.”
Included in the 133-pages of lesson plans is a student guide entitled “Extremism.”
The DOD warns students to be aware “that many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights"
Under a section titled “Extremist Ideologies,” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”
“It’s disturbing insight into what’s happening inside Obama’s Pentagon,” Fitton told Fox News. “The Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism.”
The Pentagon did not return telephone calls seeking comment on the training materials.
The training guide warned that participation in groups that are regarded as extremist organizations is “incompatible with military service and is, therefore prohibited.”
“It’s craziness,” Fitton said. “It’s political correctness run amok.”
The training documents also focus on those who cherish individual liberty.
It’s not the first time the military has been caught using training materials that depict conservatives and Christians as extremists.
In April Fox News obtained an email sent by a lieutenant colonel at Fort Campbell to three dozen subordinates warning them to be on the lookout for any soldiers who might be members of “domestic hate groups” like the FRC and the American Family Association.
In a separate incident, an Army training instructor listed Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism – along with Al Qaeda and Hamas.
The same Army spokesman said the training session was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army.”
Fitton told Fox News the military seems to be having a lot of "isolated incidents" and it appears the Pentagon is sending a message to Christians.
“They are putting out the not-welcome sign to conservative Christians,” Fitton said. “They are trying to make the military an unwelcome place for conservative Christians.”
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/pentagon-labels-founding-fathers-conservatives-as-extremists.html
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
USA should suspend aid to Egypt to protect Christians
Not One More Plane, Not One More Tank, Not One More Dollar, Until Egypt’s Christians are Protected
By David French
I urge Cornerites to read Andrew Doran’s article on the homepage comparing the Muslim Brotherhood’s onslaught against Christians in Egypt to Kristallnacht. As you read his account, and as you see pathetic hand-wringing that’s overtaken much of official Washington, think about the following:
- Egypt’s active duty military numbers over 450,000 soldiers, and many of them carry American equipment, including American small arms.
- Egypt’s army is equipped with more than 2,600 American-designed (and largely American-built) main battle tanks.
- Egypt’s air force flies more than 240 American fighters, most of them F-16s.
- U.S. aid constitutes 25 percent of Egyptian defense spending.
Now, do you think we don’t have leverage?
As churches burn, as nuns are paraded through the streets by the Muslim Brotherhood, and as Christians across Egypt fear for their lives in the face of the jihadist onslaught, American policy can and should get very simple, very fast: Not one scintilla of aid until the Egyptian military demonstrates — by deeds, not just words — that it is committed to stopping this wave of persecution in its tracks, protecting the most basic human rights of its Christian citizens, and utterly defeating the Muslim Brotherhood.
The crisis could escalate quickly to Balkan- or Syrian-level brutality and religious cleansing, but the Egyptian military — well-stocked with equipment we purchased, made, and keep in good repair — is capable of ending the onslaught against Christians.
The Obama administration’s dance with the Muslim Brotherhood devil is one of the shameful episodes in recent American foreign policy, but we have a chance to correct our mistake before we have no good options left. In other words, before Egypt becomes Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood is our enemy, the Egyptian Christians are victims of jihad, and the American-supplied Egyptian military can and should exercise decisive force.
It’s past time to call in Egypt’s debt. They may not repay us with money, but they can repay us with actions: Protect Christians and defeat the Muslim Brotherhood, or you’re on your own.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/356178/not-one-more-plane-not-one-more-tank-not-one-more-dollar-until-egypts-christians-are
Friday, August 9, 2013
JIHAD UNLEASHED ON CHRISTIANS
By: Raymond Ibrahim
Jihad has been unleashed on Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority—and given full sanction from any number of Islamist leaders, from “radical” al-Qaeda, to the supposedly “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood.
This anti-Christian fury is far from sated
and has taken on genocidal proportions
Most recently, al-Qaeda’s Egyptian leader, Ayman Zawahiri, portrayed the overthrow of Muhammad Morsi and the Brotherhood as a “Crusader” campaign led by Coptic Pope Tawadros II who, according to Zawahiri and other terrorists, is trying to create a Coptic state in Egypt.
Since then, not only are Egypt’s Christians and churches now being attacked in ways unprecedented in the modern era, but new reports indicate that al-Qaeda’s black flag has been raised on some of them, specifically St. George Church in Sohag. Considering that it was al-Qaeda linked terrorists who initiated one of the bloodiest church attacks in recent history, the 2010 Baghdad church attack where nearly 60 Christians were slaughtered (click here for graphic images), that al-Qaeda is singling out Egypt’s Christians bodes ill.
The Islamic terrorist organization’s incitements against the Copts are just the latest to emanate from Islamists—from the top of the Brotherhood leadership to the bottom of the “Muslim street”—creating something of an “open season” on Egypt’s Christians.
Days after the overthrow of Morsi, the supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Badie, was first to attack by name Coptic Pope Tawadros for supporting the popular June 30 Revolution, which saw tens of millions of Egyptians take to the streets. After Badie’s demonization of the Copts, assaults on Christians began in earnest. Many churches were attacked and burned and several Christians were murdered in Upper Egypt; over in the Sinai, a young Coptic priest was shot dead, while the body of Magdy Lam‘i Habib, a Christian, was found mutilated and beheaded. Due to the many death threats to Pope Tawadros, he has left the papal residence at the St. Mark Cathedral—which was earlier savagely attacked, when Morsi was stillpresident.
This anti-Christian fury is far from sated and has taken on genocidal proportions. While Al Jazeera was covering (and distorting) events in Egypt, a Libyan man named Tamar Rashadcalled in and said “I want to offer the good news to [Pope] Tawadros that, Allah willing, the day is coming when no Copt will ever again tread the ground of Egypt—and no churches. We will no longer allow churches to exist.” When the TV host appeared to protest, Rashad interrupted him saying, “It’s already decided, take your cameras and go to the churches and you’ll see what’s going to happen soon, Allah willing.”
To make matters worse, Sheikh Yusif al-Qaradawi, one of the Islamic world’s leading preachers and spiritual father of the Muslim Brotherhood, has given his formal stamp of approval to persecute Copts, recently posting a video saying that “Christians” and others “were recruited [by Egypt’s military] to kill innocent Muslims.”
As expected, all these incitements against the Copts issued by several top Islamist leaders have so upped anti-Copt sentiment that it has become difficult in the last few days to keep up with the attacks on them—so many and nonstop are the reports emanating from Egypt. All throughout Upper Egypt—in Minya, Asyut, Sohag—Christians and their churches are under attack; dozens of Coptic homes and businesses have been set on fire. Due to the risk to Christian lives, many churches are no longer holding regular worship services.
The situation has gotten so dire that Ibrahim Eissa, a popular Egyptian journalist and TV personality, apparently unable to keep silent over the plight of the Copts, recently said on live TV:
“The Christians have suffered in Egypt, over the course of 2 ½ years. Their churches have been burned, their children killed. The Maspero Massacre occurred, where several Copts were slain. Catastrophic fatwas appeared, calling them infidels and inciting against them…. No one has suffered as much as they. Today, if any Christian attempts to join a protest, he does so at the risk of defying dozens of fatwas calling for his death and decapitation and the burning of churches, especially in Upper Egypt.”
With the ouster of Muhammad Morsi, Egypt’s Islamists have finally gotten the pretext they need to cleanse the nation of its Christian minority, the Copt’s—ironically, Egypt’s most native sons.
The unprecedented hate currently being visited on them is fueled by Islam’s “How Dare You?” phenomenon: As conquered non-Muslims, Christians must live as dhimmis, that is, according to traditional Islamic teaching, barely tolerated “infidels” who must be humble and submissive—to the point that they are not permitted to raise their hands to Muslims even when attacked.
Far from assuming their “proper place,” Egypt’s Christians supported the June 30 Revolution against the will and threats of the Brotherhood. Thus, to Egypt’s disenfranchised and bitter Brotherhood and its supporters, Egypt’s Christians, beginning with their pope, are all now free game.
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/08/08/jihad-unleashed-on-egypts-christians/
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Islamist jihadist threatens Catholics with destruction over next two weeks
Colorado Police are alerting churches that Christopher Dewitt Craig, an Islamist jihadist, is claiming that Catholics would be "destroyed” in the next two weeks.
On more than one occasion, Craig was seen entering a classroom at Eastern Arizona College and yelling obscenities after asking the professor if he was Mormon or Catholic.
Despite this, Police claim there’s no immediate public danger.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
We are living through the largest persecution of Christians in history
CHRISTIAN TRAGEDY IN THE MUSLIM WORLD
By: Bruce Thornton
Few people realize that we are today living through the largest persecution of Christians in history, worse even than the famous attacks under ancient Roman emperors like Diocletian and Nero. Estimates of the numbers of Christians under assault range from 100-200 million. According to one estimate, a Christian is martyred every five minutes. And most of this persecution is taking place at the hands of Muslims. Of the top fifty countries persecuting Christians, forty-two have either a Muslim majority or have sizeable Muslim populations.
The largest persecution of Christians in history
A Christian is martyred every five minutes
A human rights disaster of monumental proportions
The extent of this disaster, its origins, and the reasons why it has been met with a shrug by most of the Western media are the topics of Raymond Ibrahim’s Crucified Again. Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an associate fellow of the Middle East Forum. Fluent in Arabic, he has been tracking what he calls “one of the most dramatic stories” of our time in the reports and witnesses that appear in Arabic newspapers, news shows, and websites, but that rarely get translated into English or picked up by the Western press. What he documents in this meticulously researched and clearly argued book is a human rights disaster of monumental proportions.
In Crucified Again, Ibrahim performs two invaluable functions for educating people about the new “Great Persecution,” to use the label of the Roman war against Christians. First, he documents hundreds of specific examples from across the Muslim world. By doing so, he shows the extent of the persecution, and forestalls any claims that it is a marginal problem. Additionally, Ibrahim commemorates the forgotten victims, refusing to allow their suffering to be lost because of the indifference or inattention of the media and government officials.
These attacks reveal a consistent ideology of hatred and contempt that transcends national, geographical, and ethnic differences.
Second, he provides a cogent explanation for why these attacks are concentrated in Muslim nations. In doing so, he corrects the delusional wishful thinking and apologetic spin that mars much of the current discussion of Islamic-inspired violence.
Ibrahim’s copious reports of violence against Christians range across the whole Muslim world, including countries such as Indonesia, which is frequently characterized as “moderate” and “tolerant.” Such attacks are so frequent because they result not just from the jihadists that some Westerners dismiss as “extremists,” but from mobs of ordinary people, and from government policy and laws that discriminate against Christians.
Rather than ad hoc reactions to local grievances, then, these attacks reveal a consistent ideology of hatred and contempt that transcends national, geographical, and ethnic differences.
In Afghanistan, for example, where American blood and treasure liberated Afghans from murderous fanatics, a court order in March 2010 led to the destruction of the last Christian church in that country. In Iraq, also free because of America’s sacrifice, half of the Christians have fled; in 2010, Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad was bombed during mass, with fifty-eight killed and hundreds wounded.
In Kuwait, likewise, the beneficiary of American power, the Kuwait City Municipal Council rejected a permit for building a Greek Catholic church. A few years later, a member of parliament said he would submit a law to prohibit all church construction. A delegation of Kuwaitis was then sent to Saudi Arabia––which legally prohibits any Christian worship–– to consult with the Grand Mufti, the highest authority on Islamic law in the birthplace of Islam, the Arabian Peninsula.
Imagine the media’s vehement outrage and condemnation if the Pope in Rome had called for the destruction of all the mosques in Italy
The Mufti announced that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region,” a statement ignored in the West until Ibrahim reported it. Imagine the media’s vehement outrage and condemnation if the Pope in Rome had called for the destruction of all the mosques in Italy. The absence of any Western condemnation or even reaction to the Mufti’s statement was stunning. Is there no limit to our tolerance of Islam?
Moreover, it is in Egypt––yet another beneficiary of American money and support–– that the harassment and murder of Christians are particularly intense. Partly this reflects the large number of Coptic Christians, the some sixteen million descendants of the Egyptian Christians who were conquered by Arab armies in 640 A.D. Since the fall of Mubarak, numerous Coptic churches have been attacked by Muslim mobs. Most significant is the destruction of St. George’s church in Edfu in September 2011. Illustrating the continuity of mob violence with government policy, the chief of Edfu’s intelligence unit was observed directing the mob that destroyed the church. The governor who originally approved the permit to renovate the building went on television to announce that the “Copts made a mistake” in seeking to repair the church, “and had to be punished, and Muslims did nothing but set things right.”
The destruction of St. George’s precipitated a Christian protest against government-sanctioned violence against Christians and their churches in the Cairo suburb of Maspero in October 2011. As Muslim mobs attacked the demonstrators to shouts of “Allahu Akbar” and “kill the infidels,” the soldiers sent to keep order helped the attackers. Snipers fired on demonstrators, and armored vehicles ran over several. Despite the gruesome photographs showing the crushed heads of Copts, the Egyptian military denied the charges, but then claimed that Copts had hijacked the vehicles and ran over their co-religionists.
False media reports of Copts murdering soldiers fed the violence. Twenty-eight Christians were killed and several hundred wounded. In the aftermath, thirty-four Copts were retained, including several who had not even been at the demonstration. Later, two Coptic priests had to stand trial. Meanwhile, despite an abundance of video evidence, the Minister of Justice closed an investigation because of a “lack of identification of the culprits.”
The scope of such persecution, the similarity of the attacks, and the attackers’ motives, despite national and ethnic differences, and the role of government officials in abetting them, all cry out for explanation. Ibrahim clearly lays out the historical and theological roots of Muslim intolerance in the book’s most important chapter, “Lost History.” Contrary to the apologists who attribute these attacks to poverty, political oppression, the legacy of colonialism, or the unresolved Israeli-Arab conflict, Ibrahim shows that intolerance of other religions and the use of violence against them reflects traditional Islamic theology and jurisprudence.
First Ibrahim corrects a misconception of history that has abetted this misunderstanding. During the European colonial presence in the Middle East, oppression of Christians and other religious minorities was proscribed. This was also the period in which many Muslims, recognizing how much more powerful the Europeans were than they, began to emulate the political and social mores and institutions of the colonial powers.
Thus they abolished the discriminatory sharia laws that set out how “dhimmis,” the Christians and Jews living under Muslim authority, were to be treated. In 1856, for example, the Ottomans under pressure from the European powers issued a decree that said non-Muslims should be treated equally and guaranteed freedom of worship. This roughly century-long period of relative tolerance Ibrahim calls the Christian “Golden Age” in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, as Ibrahim writes, the century-long flourishing of Middle Eastern Christians “has created chronological confusions and intellectual pitfalls for Westerners” who take the “hundred-year lull in persecution” as the norm.
In fact, that century was an anomaly, and after World War I, traditional Islamic attitudes and doctrines began to reassert themselves, a movement that accelerated in the 1970s. The result is the disappearance of Christianity in the land of its birth. In 1900, twenty percent of the Middle East was Christian. Today, less than two percent is.
Having corrected our distorted historical perspective, Ibrahim then lays out the justifying doctrines of Islam that have made such persecution possible during the fourteen centuries of Muslim encounters with non-Muslims. The foundations can be found in the Koran, which Muslims take to be the words of God.
There “infidels” are defined as “they who say Allah is one of three” or “Allah is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary”––that is, explicitly Christian. As such, according to the Koran, they must be eliminated or subjugated. The most significant verse that guides Muslim treatment of Christians and Jews commands Muslims to wage war against infidels until they are conquered, pay tribute, and acknowledge their humiliation and submission.
In the seventh century, the second Caliph, Omar bin al-Khattab, promulgated the “Conditions of Omar” that specified in more detail how Christians should be treated. These conditions prohibit building churches or repairing existing ones, performing religious processions in public, exhibiting crosses, praying near Muslims, proselytizing, and preventing conversion to Islam, in addition to rules governing how Christians dress, comport themselves, and treat Muslims.
“If they refuse this,” Omar said, “it is the sword without leniency.” These rules have consistently determined treatment of Christians for fourteen centuries, and Muslims regularly cite violations of these rules as the justifying motives for their attacks. As a Saudi Sheikh said recently in a mosque sermon, “If they [Christians] violate these conditions, they have no protection.” From Morocco to Indonesia, Christians are attacked and murdered because they allegedly have tried to renovate a church, proselytized among Muslims, or blasphemed against Mohammed––all reasons consistent with Koranic injunctions codified in laws and the curricula of school textbooks.
Both Islamic doctrine and history show the continuity of motive behind today’s persecution of Christians. As Ibrahim writes, “The same exact patterns of persecution are evident from one end of the Islamic world to the other––in lands that do not share the same language, race, or culture––that share only Islam.” But received wisdom in the West today denies this obvious truth. The reasons for this attitude of denial would fill another book. As Ibrahim points out, the corruption of history in the academy and in elementary school textbooks have replaced historical truth with various melodramas in which Western colonialists and imperialists have oppressed Muslims.
These and other prejudices have led American media outlets to ignore or distort Islamic-inspired violence, as can be seen in the coverage of the Nigerian jihadist movement Boko Haram. These jihadists have publicly announced their aim of cleansing Nigeria of Christians and establishing sharia law, yet Western media coverage consistently ignores this aim and casts the conflict as a “cycle of violence” in which both sides are equally guilty.
As Ibrahim concludes, even when Western media report on violence against Christians, “they employ an arsenal of semantic games, key phrases, convenient omissions, and moral relativism” to promote the anti-Western narrative that “Muslim violence and intolerance are products of anything and everything––poverty, political and historical grievances, or territorial disputes––except Islam.”
Within the global Muslim community, there is a civil war between those who want to adapt their faith to the modern world, and those who want to wage war in order to recreate a lost past of Muslim dominance.
We do the former no favor by indulging Islam’s more unsavory aspects, since those aspects are exactly what need to be changed if Muslims want to enjoy the freedom and prosperity that come from political orders founded on human rights and inclusive tolerance. Raymond Ibrahim’s Crucified Again is an invaluable resource for telling the truth that could promote such change.
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/07/30/christian-tragedy-in-the-muslim-world/
Monday, July 22, 2013
12 nurses forced to participate in abortions
They Said ‘No!’: What happened when 12 nurses refused to participate in abortions
January 14, 2013 (ADF) - Nurses in a big city hospital never know what a day's shift will bring – straightforward cases or medical miracles, major crises or minor first aid. Whatever her station, whatever the duty of the moment, a nurse tries to ready herself for anything. But some things, you just can't see coming.
It was Beryl Otieno Ngoje's turn to work the desk in the Same Day Surgery Unit at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), in Newark. She was busy with the usual administrative duties – filing charts, handing out forms to the patients, answering visitors' questions – when another nurse hurried up beside her.
"Oh, something just happened, you won't believe it," the woman said, visibly excited. "I have it in my hand." She held up a clenched fist, palm up. "I have it in my hand," she said again.
"What do you have in your hand?" Beryl asked, bemused at the woman's demeanor.
"Do you want to see?"
"Yes," Beryl said – and instantly regretted it.
The other nurse opened her hand to reveal the tiny, tiny form of a baby, just aborted.
"I felt like somebody had just hit me with something in my face," Beryl remembers.
She began to cry, to the consternation of her coworker.
"I'm sorry – I didn't know you were going to react like that," the woman said.
It was a moment that seared Beryl's soul and haunted her memory, and it would come back often, in the days ahead. For the other nurse was not just a co-worker, but her manager... with the power to hold not just an unborn baby, but Beryl's career in the palm of her hand.
The dozen-or-so nurses of the UMDNJ Same Day Surgery Unit – like nurses at any other hospital – are a lively mixture of backgrounds and personalities. Beryl, a native of Kenya, is a quiet ICU specialist who's been with the hospital for over 15 years. Fe Esperanza Racpan Vinoya, a veteran of the ER and ICU, is from the Philippines, and speaks with cheerful delight about her love for music and for her church. Lorna Mendoza has been a nurse for 25 years, at University for more than a dozen, and takes both her work and her Christian faith very seriously.
"We high-five each other," Beryl says, "Most of us are there 12 hours, and that is a good portion of your day. It is important that you get along and feel relaxed and free."
Because: "you get to socialize a lot," Fe says. "You're less busy here than in the ER."
The nurses of Fe's unit are responsible for monitoring, medicating, and placating patients going into and coming out of surgery. That means a lot of bedside comfort, encouragement, and interaction with both patients and their families, so conversations between coworkers tend to be quick exchanges in the hallway or on break. What the nurses share, more than close friendship, is delight in and commitment to a job they love.
"It's a noble job," says Fe. "Very fulfilling... a healing profession. Everything you do for the patient just makes them feel better, and satisfies my entire being, because I've helped someone."
"A lot of people don't realize... we usually see somebody at their worst," Beryl says. "They're not perky, happy – they're ailing and hurting. They just want somebody to be there. I can make a difference. I can help in whatever little way. I find that very gratifying."
All operations on this unit are elective – that is, the patient chooses to have a specific procedure done: a tonsillectomy, a hernia repair, the removal of cataracts. And, sometimes, an abortion.
Not the kind of abortion where the mother's life is in danger, Beryl says. "They just choose to end it. These are people who go to the doctor and say, 'Look, I don't want this pregnancy.' The age range is mostly teenagers – 13-, 14- and 15-year-olds – and a lot of times, they come back."
"To some, it's like contraception," Fe says. "Five or six times, you see them there."
If she ends up talking to those patients, she says, "I always tell them, 'I'll be praying for you, and I hope that this is the last time I'll see you doing this kind of procedure.' I can see in their faces how guilty they feel, the guilt in their hearts." Many say, "Yes, definitely this is my last time."
And yet, so often, they come back.
Fe knows, all too well, about that guilt in their eyes. Twenty years ago – still new to America, still learning the language and culture, just getting the hang of her first nursing job – she found she was pregnant. But her doctor said the number of rubella antibodies in her blood was too low, and posed far too great a risk for the baby. He urged her to get a therapeutic abortion.
Fe and her husband pressed the doctor repeatedly – was this absolutely necessary? He assured them it was, and, out of their depth in a new country, they didn't realize they had any choice. Fe soon found herself in a clinic, surrounded by half-a-hundred teenagers, all waiting their turn to abbreviate the life in their wombs. Fe sat with her husband and sister.
"We were the only ones crying," she says.
Right up until the moment of the procedure itself, Fe was on the phone with her doctors, trying to get their okay not to end her baby's life. But her pediatrician and the specialist were adamant, and she went through with what they told her to do. The decision has troubled her ever since.
"I wasn't able to sleep for a long time," she says. "It took me years to just feel that, okay, it's done. I asked for forgiveness. The Lord knows my heart, that I didn't want to have that happen."
Within a year, Fe was pregnant again. She is now the mother of three... yet her thoughts linger, sometimes, on the one she lost. The experience makes it that much harder, she says, to watch the young teenagers come through to eliminate a child just because it might complicate their lives. She knows how their hearts will be haunted in ways they can't imagine now.
Which is why she was horrified to learn that she was being ordered to help with their abortions.
The change came in September of 2011, with the news that a peer was being promoted. Though employed in the same unit as Fe, Beryl and the rest, this particular nurse had long been assigned to a special team that carried out the abortions without any involvement or assistance from other nurses on the Same Day Surgery floor. The abortion team had always drawn its staff from nurses who had expressed no qualms about helping end a child's life.
Promoted from that team to a supervisory position over all the nurses, the new assistant manager announced that – since she and others had to help with abortions – she saw no reason why every nurse shouldn't help. Hospital officials agreed, and passed a new, mandatory policy to make it so. The assistant manager quickly set up a training program that would give each nurse on the unit hands-on experience in how to assist with and clean up after abortions.
"As long as you work here," she told the 12 nurses who openly protested, "you're going to have to do it. If you don't, you're going to be fired or transferred out."
"We were all shocked," Fe says. "All these years I've been a nurse, I was never told to help kill children."
But the managers remained adamant. Hospital administrators supported them. When the nurses brought up a long-standing, in-writing agreement exempting them from taking part in abortions apart from a medical emergency, officials told them "an emergency" would hereafter be defined as any situation in which the patient was "bleeding." And every birth involves bleeding.
"I knew we were going to lose our jobs," says Lorna, who, at one point, amid the flurry of discussions with the managers, was asked to provide a patient with a bedpan. Retrieving it, she found an aborted baby inside. Horrified and sobbing, she called for help, telling the manager who responded, "I don't know what to do with this. I can't do this." She soon found herself in the office of the vice president of nursing, where she was accused of refusing to help patients and threatened with termination. She wasn't the only one called in.
"Our jobs were hanging by a string," Beryl says. "We were like, 'All right. If they're going to fire all 12 of us, fine. But this is against what we believe God wants us to do.' We didn't come into this profession to do [abortions]. We told them we weren't comfortable with it and didn't feel they should force us. And if that meant our jobs, well... God was going to provide."
When even their own union declined to help them, Fe wrote a letter to hospital officials saying that she and her coworkers would not participate in abortions. She passed it around for the other nurses; 15 signed it. She gave the letter to her manager, who took it to the director of nursing.. Response was swift. A meeting was called for the next day, with each of the signing nurses, the labor board, a union official, the managers, and "an expert on ethics" scheduled to be on hand.
The day of that announcement, Pastor Terry Smith, of Life Christian Church in West Orange, New Jersey, returned from a trip. A staff member told him that one of his parishioners – Fe – had called, shared what was happening at the hospital, and asked for advice. The pastor immediately phoned Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council.
"I'll be all over this," said Deo, who hung up and called Alliance Defending Freedom. Shortly afterward, staff attorney Matt Bowman was on the phone with a local allied attorney, Demetrios Stratis, enlisting him to help defend the nurses. The two immediately called Fe.
"I remember... I was driving and speaking to them three-way," says Fe, who had just been convincing herself the nurses' case was hopeless. "I didn't know a thing about conscience law – it was very, very new to me." The two told her she had a legitimate case, and offered to defend her. Best of all, Stratis said he could be on hand for her meeting with the managers the next day.
"Is there a catch?" Fe asked. Visions of sky-high attorneys' fees danced in her head.
"No catch," Stratis said. "We're pro bono lawyers." Fe drove home in a daze.
Next morning, she met Stratis at the hospital entrance. She took him upstairs to the Same Day Surgery Unit and introduced him to the nurses on duty and others waiting for the meeting. Twelve of the 15 immediately agreed to have him and Bowman represent them in the case.
"A godsend," Beryl says. "We had no idea which way to go. It was like something from heaven just dropped in our lap at the right time. It boosted our morale a lot." It did considerably less for the morale of the nurse managers and others gathered for the meeting, who had not reckoned with the nurses hiring outside counsel.
"Who are you?" a manager asked Stratis.
"He's our attorney, and he is going to speak on our behalf," replied Fe. Everyone split into huddles – Stratis and the nurses in one room, administrators in another. After a few minutes, the nurse manager came to cancel the meeting, but not before Stratis made it clear that he would be defending "my clients' legal right not to be forced to participate in terminating a pregnancy."
"It was like we had been talking to a brick wall, and that brick wall just got smashed," Fe says. "We were very happy after that. It gave us a sense of hope."
Stratis and Bowman reminded hospital officials – face to face and in writing – that their new policy transgressed both state and federal laws that make it illegal to compel medical professionals to violate their conscience by forcing them to help with a non-emergency abortion. With their actions, the hospital was not only risking a lawsuit, but more than $60 million in federal funding. Still, administrators stubbornly contended that all abortions in the Same Day Surgery area – each scheduled weeks in advance – were "emergencies."
"These surgeries are, by definition, elective, outpatient procedures," Bowman says. "If they weren't, the ER is just 30 seconds away." Plus, he points out, "these are pre- and post-operative nurses. They're not even supposed to be there for a surgery, whether it's abortion or not."
To get around that, he says, the abortion team "would give a woman a pill that induced labor, give it in the pre-op area, and leave her there. After a couple of hours, she'd start going into labor." And now, she was outside the surgical area – in a section for which the 12 pro-life nurses were responsible.
With the hospital unwilling to budge, Alliance Defending Freedom filed suit on behalf of the 12 nurses to defend their legally protected right of conscience. Their managers, meanwhile, insisted on including the 12 in abortion training, which included interactions with abortion patients and handling dead babies. Three were forced to take part before the nurses enlisted Bowman and Stratis. Once hired, though, the two quickly obtained an injunction that prevented other nurses from having to undergo training the following day.
One of the three forced to train did not quite accomplish, perhaps, what her managers had in mind. During her shift, a patient expressed reluctance to go through with the procedure. The nurse talked with her awhile, then – at her request – quietly brought in the woman's husband. After a bit, the woman dressed and they left... having decided not to have the abortion.
For weeks, the 12 nurses worked in a decidedly tense environment. "It was scary," Beryl says. "We prayed a lot. We came into work and stepped off the elevator and said, 'God just let the day go by well, without incident' – because we had our incidents. It was very, very uncomfortable." The 12 drew strength, she says, from each other, from praying friends, and from their faith that, "Our God is greater than this."
As a court date drew nearer, the hospital came up with another threat: if the 12 would not help with abortions, administrators would hire nurses who were willing to do so. Soon, officials intimated, there might not be work enough for everybody... in which cases those nurses willing to do anything might well enjoy greater job security than those only willing to do most things.
Amid all the tension, threats, and growing media coverage, the judge in the case stunned everyone by suddenly announcing, in a preliminary hearing, that a settlement had been reached.
"We had gotten everything [the 12 nurses] requested," Stratis says. "We'd gotten the hospital to agree not to force them to perform these abortions. There would be no retaliatory measures against them, and they could feel free and sleep at night, knowing that the next day they would not have to be trained on the abortion process or help a woman kill an innocent child."
"I was crying – really crying," says Lorna, who heard the news from one of the other nurses. "And very thankful. The next day, I went to work, and all of us were hugging and very happy."
"Before, I used to think that some prayers won't be answered," Fe says. "Sometimes, I'd feel very hopeless. But with this case, I saw how the Lord moves... providing the resources, the people who would help us out. It just strengthened my faith. I really thank God for Alliance Defending Freedom."
"I'm not sure I know where we'd be today if it wasn't for them, really," Beryl says. "We were up against some really big guns, and Alliance Defending Freedom was determined to support us."
"This case took an emotional toll on all of these nurses," Stratis says. "To stand up, to be part of a lawsuit against their employer, is very, very hard to do. There was a lot at stake. Some were the sole breadwinners for their family. Being faced with termination of their job or standing up for their faith... that is a very, very difficult decision, especially in these economic times."
But "I couldn't do what they were asking me to do," Beryl says. "I could not. You go against what you believe, what are you? What's left? Just a shell of what you are."
Spoken like a woman whose conscience is in good hands.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Obama gives Church the "kiss of death"
Obama's Court Marks Churches for Death
By Daren Jonescu
The American Catholic Church, along with any other religious institution that resists granting "equal status" to homosexuality, is about to be killed. If you doubt this, just wait and see. The death sentence has been issued and the U.S. Supreme Court, cheered on by Barack Obama, has just denied the final appeal.
The SCOTUS decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act in effect promises the prestige of explicitly upheld constitutionality to homosexual marriage. (I love my language; "gay" still means "joyful" for me, even if I'm no longer permitted to use it for fear of being misunderstood.) Barack Obama has already reassured his enemies, i.e., people of traditional Judeo-Christian religious views, that this decision will not affect their church practices. Anyone who has seen a mafia film knows what the boss's reassurance means in this context: the reassured man is about to be driven to the docks, where someone is waiting with an ice pick.
Here is Obama's kiss of death in his own words:
"Nothing about this decision changes that." Technically true -- until the first time some nominally Catholic progressive activists decide to sue the Church for discrimination, on the grounds that they want to live as Catholics, but also as homosexual couples in good standing. Or until the first time a government office sends in an army of lawyers to establish that a religion's refusal to consent to marriage as defined by the Supreme Court nullifies that church's tax-exempt status, analogous to the strongarm tactics used with regard to birth control and Obamacare.
But even before this anti-discrimination mantra is used as a legal tool to attack churches which refuse to perform homosexual weddings, those churches have already been condemned to death by the Supreme Courtesans and their Chief Executive Madam in the White House.
By taking a confident step towards declaring homosexual marriage, in effect, a "positive right," the Court has formally condemned to the ash heap of history any person or organization that refuses to accept its legitimacy. Every American who rejects homosexual marriage on principle has now officially been grouped among Obama's famous underclass of "bitter clingers" -- those uneducated hicks who, feeling that society has unfairly run up ahead of them, cling angrily to their Bibles, their guns, and their heterosexual unions. Furthermore, the opinion of these clingers -- which also happens to have been the consensus among all civilized communities in the history of the human race until fifteen years ago -- has now been stigmatized as a mere "attitude problem," and more specifically as an unjust attitude.
Obama's promise not to force organized religions to recognize homosexual marriage came at the conclusion of his formal statement of congratulations to homosexuals, a statement that began this way:
I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it.
Opposition to homosexual marriage is "discrimination," it entails treating homosexuals "as a separate and lesser class of people," it is a "wrong" that needed to be "righted," and America "is better off" for correcting this great moral injustice -- but don't worry, freedom of religion will be protected. In other words, when Obama concludes his celebratory message by noting that marriage is a "sensitive" issue on which people hold "a wide range of views," what he means is that those people who continue to lag behind the moral evolutionary curve must be allowed to persevere in their Neanderthalism, in the name of "religious freedom." He nominally asserts their religious liberty for the sake of branding them a social evil which must, unfortunately, be tolerated for the time being.
Justice Antonin Scalia assesses the SCOTUS majority's equally backhanded reassurances in the same way:
It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here -- when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
In other words, let's drop the diplomatic façade for two seconds and say what every rational adult knows, and what the homosexual activists celebrating their heads off throughout America in the wake of this decision obviously know, which is that progressivism is nothing if not "progressive": each step is consistent with an intended general direction, and clearly foreshadows a subsequent step in the same direction. The advocates of a federally protected "right" to homosexual marriage know full well that they have reached the penultimate rung of their ladder.
Obama followed his judgment that America "is better off" for the SCOTUS decision with this sophistical zinger:
We are a people who declared that we are all created equal -- and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.
This is what progressive education breeds: a society whose leaders abuse their founding principles with impunity, because neither they nor any of their listeners have the intellectual resources or historical sense to understand the absurdity of their own words.
Obama, echoing the SCOTUS majority opinion, declares that the fact that "we are all created equal" entails that "the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." Pardon my French-Canadianism (mother's side), but what the h*** does that mean? People are, as a matter of political and moral principle, created equal. From this, according to the president of the United States, it follows that their "love" must therefore be judged as equal.
Really? Has Obama not just laid the pseudo-theoretical groundwork for the next stage that we have all known was coming for years now, namely "marriage rights" for human-animal couples, for adult-child couples, for groups, for men with their teddy bears, and so on through the halls of deviant imagination? After all, the feeling of "love" now apparently confers rights under the U.S. Constitution; and equal "love" rights, according to the President and SCOTUS, necessarily entail equal marriage rights.
Does it follow from Obama's declaration of equal rights for "love" that couples who do not truly "love" one another are not worthy of equal protection? Or does the mere claim of love suffice? And what about the other passions? On what grounds has love been selected as the only emotion officially granted constitutional recognition, and even designated as a source of rights?
How did natural equality come to mean equality of feelings, and hence, by the Indian rope trick, equality of legal recognition of such feelings? Political equality, as it was understood by the man Obama is citing (though probably without realizing it), Thomas Jefferson, is the product of modern philosophy's great and humbling leap of practical reason: the observation that the natural differences among us, when viewed from a speculative God's-eye perspective, are not significant enough to warrant some men having a higher status under the law than others. That is, our natures are similar enough to force us to concede equal natural rights to all men, from which concession prudence demands a political community structured to protect all men equally. But all of this presumes that we have a nature, i.e., a knowable standard of species definition and moral virtue determined not by subjective inclination or societal trend but by the facts of our common physical and metaphysical being in combination with the longstanding traits and practices which follow logically from that being.
In short, the modern concepts of natural rights and natural equality mean nothing apart from the understanding of man as a rational animal with certain natural preservational needs that can only be met through his own voluntary action.
It was our nature -- as this nature was understood by the great men who conceived of the modern project of political liberty -- that grounded the notion of universal natural rights, and its corollary, political equality. Obama and SCOTUS reject all of this when they declare, in effect, that the mere experiencing of a subjective emotion confers a "right" to a specific legal status. And yet they hide behind the Jeffersonian language of natural equality precisely in order to carry out their ambush on the Jeffersonian understanding of natural rights.
This is what comes of the evil mixture of moral relativism and a societal presumption in favor of central government micromanagement of individuals and communities. The federal government need not have been in the marriage-defining business in the first place. DOMA was an attempt to fix a government overreach problem with "better" government overreach. Now comes the inevitable synthesis in this dialectic of social derailment: not only will homosexual marriage be granted constitutional protection (as Scalia warns), but every individual and organization that publically disapproves of it will henceforth be isolated by the state and, increasingly, the popular culture, as morally equivalent to white supremacists -- or even Tea Party members.
America's Catholic bishops, like too many of their religious kin throughout the modern world, have played willing stooges to the leaders of the progressive mafia for so long that most remain shell-shocked at the Obama administration's active hostility toward them.
Even when they noticed the driver turning toward the docks, they still had trouble admitting to themselves that this journey was meant to be their last.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/obamas_court_marks_churches_for_death.html
By Daren Jonescu
The American Catholic Church, along with any other religious institution that resists granting "equal status" to homosexuality, is about to be killed. If you doubt this, just wait and see. The death sentence has been issued and the U.S. Supreme Court, cheered on by Barack Obama, has just denied the final appeal.
The SCOTUS decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act in effect promises the prestige of explicitly upheld constitutionality to homosexual marriage. (I love my language; "gay" still means "joyful" for me, even if I'm no longer permitted to use it for fear of being misunderstood.) Barack Obama has already reassured his enemies, i.e., people of traditional Judeo-Christian religious views, that this decision will not affect their church practices. Anyone who has seen a mafia film knows what the boss's reassurance means in this context: the reassured man is about to be driven to the docks, where someone is waiting with an ice pick.
Here is Obama's kiss of death in his own words:
On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation's commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision -- which applies only to civil marriages -- changes that.
"Nothing about this decision changes that." Technically true -- until the first time some nominally Catholic progressive activists decide to sue the Church for discrimination, on the grounds that they want to live as Catholics, but also as homosexual couples in good standing. Or until the first time a government office sends in an army of lawyers to establish that a religion's refusal to consent to marriage as defined by the Supreme Court nullifies that church's tax-exempt status, analogous to the strongarm tactics used with regard to birth control and Obamacare.
The time will likely come when the progressive moral reversal will be complete, and weddings performed by churches that do not condone homosexual marriage will not be recognized by the federal government for the purposes of government benefits.
But even before this anti-discrimination mantra is used as a legal tool to attack churches which refuse to perform homosexual weddings, those churches have already been condemned to death by the Supreme Courtesans and their Chief Executive Madam in the White House.
By taking a confident step towards declaring homosexual marriage, in effect, a "positive right," the Court has formally condemned to the ash heap of history any person or organization that refuses to accept its legitimacy. Every American who rejects homosexual marriage on principle has now officially been grouped among Obama's famous underclass of "bitter clingers" -- those uneducated hicks who, feeling that society has unfairly run up ahead of them, cling angrily to their Bibles, their guns, and their heterosexual unions. Furthermore, the opinion of these clingers -- which also happens to have been the consensus among all civilized communities in the history of the human race until fifteen years ago -- has now been stigmatized as a mere "attitude problem," and more specifically as an unjust attitude.
Obama's promise not to force organized religions to recognize homosexual marriage came at the conclusion of his formal statement of congratulations to homosexuals, a statement that began this way:
I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it.
Opposition to homosexual marriage is "discrimination," it entails treating homosexuals "as a separate and lesser class of people," it is a "wrong" that needed to be "righted," and America "is better off" for correcting this great moral injustice -- but don't worry, freedom of religion will be protected. In other words, when Obama concludes his celebratory message by noting that marriage is a "sensitive" issue on which people hold "a wide range of views," what he means is that those people who continue to lag behind the moral evolutionary curve must be allowed to persevere in their Neanderthalism, in the name of "religious freedom." He nominally asserts their religious liberty for the sake of branding them a social evil which must, unfortunately, be tolerated for the time being.
Justice Antonin Scalia assesses the SCOTUS majority's equally backhanded reassurances in the same way:
It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here -- when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
In other words, let's drop the diplomatic façade for two seconds and say what every rational adult knows, and what the homosexual activists celebrating their heads off throughout America in the wake of this decision obviously know, which is that progressivism is nothing if not "progressive": each step is consistent with an intended general direction, and clearly foreshadows a subsequent step in the same direction. The advocates of a federally protected "right" to homosexual marriage know full well that they have reached the penultimate rung of their ladder.
Obama followed his judgment that America "is better off" for the SCOTUS decision with this sophistical zinger:
We are a people who declared that we are all created equal -- and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.
This is what progressive education breeds: a society whose leaders abuse their founding principles with impunity, because neither they nor any of their listeners have the intellectual resources or historical sense to understand the absurdity of their own words.
Obama, echoing the SCOTUS majority opinion, declares that the fact that "we are all created equal" entails that "the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." Pardon my French-Canadianism (mother's side), but what the h*** does that mean? People are, as a matter of political and moral principle, created equal. From this, according to the president of the United States, it follows that their "love" must therefore be judged as equal.
Really? Has Obama not just laid the pseudo-theoretical groundwork for the next stage that we have all known was coming for years now, namely "marriage rights" for human-animal couples, for adult-child couples, for groups, for men with their teddy bears, and so on through the halls of deviant imagination? After all, the feeling of "love" now apparently confers rights under the U.S. Constitution; and equal "love" rights, according to the President and SCOTUS, necessarily entail equal marriage rights.
Does it follow from Obama's declaration of equal rights for "love" that couples who do not truly "love" one another are not worthy of equal protection? Or does the mere claim of love suffice? And what about the other passions? On what grounds has love been selected as the only emotion officially granted constitutional recognition, and even designated as a source of rights?
How did natural equality come to mean equality of feelings, and hence, by the Indian rope trick, equality of legal recognition of such feelings? Political equality, as it was understood by the man Obama is citing (though probably without realizing it), Thomas Jefferson, is the product of modern philosophy's great and humbling leap of practical reason: the observation that the natural differences among us, when viewed from a speculative God's-eye perspective, are not significant enough to warrant some men having a higher status under the law than others. That is, our natures are similar enough to force us to concede equal natural rights to all men, from which concession prudence demands a political community structured to protect all men equally. But all of this presumes that we have a nature, i.e., a knowable standard of species definition and moral virtue determined not by subjective inclination or societal trend but by the facts of our common physical and metaphysical being in combination with the longstanding traits and practices which follow logically from that being.
In short, the modern concepts of natural rights and natural equality mean nothing apart from the understanding of man as a rational animal with certain natural preservational needs that can only be met through his own voluntary action.
It was our nature -- as this nature was understood by the great men who conceived of the modern project of political liberty -- that grounded the notion of universal natural rights, and its corollary, political equality. Obama and SCOTUS reject all of this when they declare, in effect, that the mere experiencing of a subjective emotion confers a "right" to a specific legal status. And yet they hide behind the Jeffersonian language of natural equality precisely in order to carry out their ambush on the Jeffersonian understanding of natural rights.
This is what comes of the evil mixture of moral relativism and a societal presumption in favor of central government micromanagement of individuals and communities. The federal government need not have been in the marriage-defining business in the first place. DOMA was an attempt to fix a government overreach problem with "better" government overreach. Now comes the inevitable synthesis in this dialectic of social derailment: not only will homosexual marriage be granted constitutional protection (as Scalia warns), but every individual and organization that publically disapproves of it will henceforth be isolated by the state and, increasingly, the popular culture, as morally equivalent to white supremacists -- or even Tea Party members.
America's Catholic bishops, like too many of their religious kin throughout the modern world, have played willing stooges to the leaders of the progressive mafia for so long that most remain shell-shocked at the Obama administration's active hostility toward them.
Everything they teach, and every noble thing their tradition has stood for through the centuries, has now been condemned as antithetical to "progress," and reduced to antiquated bigotry.
Even when they noticed the driver turning toward the docks, they still had trouble admitting to themselves that this journey was meant to be their last.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/obamas_court_marks_churches_for_death.html
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Obama attacks Catholics again - This time Catholic Schools
by BEN SHAPIRO
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/20/Obama-catholic-AMericans-religious-freedom
Speaking in Ireland this week, President Obama stated that Catholic schools were divisive: “If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.”
On Thursday, the American Catholics for Religious Freedom fired back on President Obama’s words to 2,000 young people at the G8 Summit, stating, “President Obama’s anti-faith, secular agenda was shamefully on full display yesterday when he told the young people of Northern Ireland that Catholic education and other faith-based schools were divisive and an obstacle to peace. All Americans of faith should be outraged by these comments which clearly telegraph the President’s belief system and are in fact at their core even anti-American.”
American Catholics for Religious Freedom points out that the media has completely ignored the story, and adds, “Secular progressives like President Obama ignore the truth that faith-based education is a component of the Religious Freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. He can’t bear the thought that Catholic and parochial schools not only teach important values but consistently produce better educational results at lower cost than America’s failing public schools. The President’s troubling values are showing here in a way that demonstrate just how dangerous this Administration is and how committed it is to eroding the rights of all people of faith.”
And, they note, this is the same President who has attempted to cram down anti-Catholic doctrine via Obamacare. “It’s time Americans stood up for Religious Freedom, for the U.S. Constitution and against President Obama’s radical views about the place of faith in American life,” the group concludes.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/20/Obama-catholic-AMericans-religious-freedom
Christmas is No Longer Outlawed in Texas Schools!
Christmas Comes Early in Texas, As Gov. Perry Signs Religious Freedom Bill
By Susan Jones
By law, it is now okay to say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hanukkah" in Texas public schools.
Gov. Rick Perry signed House Bill 308 on Thursday, allowing public school students and staff to use traditional holiday greetings and display religious scenes and symbols on school property.
"I'm proud we are standing up for religious freedom in our state," Gov. Perry said.
"Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion, and people of faith often feel like they can't express that faith publicly. HB 308 works to address that by ensuring that people of all faiths are free to use traditional holiday greetings, and display religious scenes and symbols, even on school property. It ensures freedom of expression where, for many students, teachers and administrators, it's most important."
The bill states: "A school district may educate students about the history of traditional winter celebrations, and allow students and district staff to offer traditional greetings regarding the celebrations, including: (1) "Merry Christmas"; (2) "Happy Hanukkah"; and (3) "happy holidays."
The bill specifically says that schools may display scenes or symbols associated with religious holidays -- as long as the display includes scenes or symbols of more than one religion or at least one secular scene or symbol.
Displays "may not include a message that encourages adherence to a particular religious belief," the bill says. -
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/christmas-comes-early-texas-gov-perry-signs-religious-freedom-bill
By Susan Jones
By law, it is now okay to say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hanukkah" in Texas public schools.
Gov. Rick Perry signed House Bill 308 on Thursday, allowing public school students and staff to use traditional holiday greetings and display religious scenes and symbols on school property.
"I'm proud we are standing up for religious freedom in our state," Gov. Perry said.
"Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion, and people of faith often feel like they can't express that faith publicly. HB 308 works to address that by ensuring that people of all faiths are free to use traditional holiday greetings, and display religious scenes and symbols, even on school property. It ensures freedom of expression where, for many students, teachers and administrators, it's most important."
The bill states: "A school district may educate students about the history of traditional winter celebrations, and allow students and district staff to offer traditional greetings regarding the celebrations, including: (1) "Merry Christmas"; (2) "Happy Hanukkah"; and (3) "happy holidays."
The bill specifically says that schools may display scenes or symbols associated with religious holidays -- as long as the display includes scenes or symbols of more than one religion or at least one secular scene or symbol.
Displays "may not include a message that encourages adherence to a particular religious belief," the bill says. -
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/christmas-comes-early-texas-gov-perry-signs-religious-freedom-bill
Friday, June 7, 2013
Attacks on Christian children on the rise in Egypt.
By: Raymond Ibrahim
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/06/06/jihad-on-egypts-christian-children/
Attacks on Christian children, both boys and girls, are on the rise in Egypt.
Last week, a six-year-old Coptic Christian boy named Cyril Yusuf Sa‘ad was abducted and held for ransom. After his family paid off the Muslim kidnapper, Ahmed Abdel Moneim Abdel-Salam, he still killed the child and threw his body in the sewer of his house. In the words of the Arabic report, the boy’s “family is in tatters after paying 30,000 pounds to the abductor, who still killed the innocent child and threw his body into the toilet of his home, where the body, swollen and moldy, was exhumed.”
Weeks earlier, ten-year-old Sameh George, an altar boy at the Coptic church of St. Abdul Masih (Servant of Christ) in Minya, Egypt, was kidnapped by “unknown persons” while on his way to church to participate in Holy Pascha prayers leading up to Orthodox Easter. His parents and family reported that it was his custom to go to church and worship in the evening, but when he didn’t return, and they began to panic, they received an anonymous phone call from the kidnappers, saying that they had the Christian boy in their possession and would execute him unless they received 250,000 Egyptian pounds in ransom money.
And about a month before this latter incident, yet another Coptic boy, twelve-year-old Abanoub Ashraf, was also kidnapped right in front of his church, St. Paul in Shubra al-Khayma district. His abductors, four men, put a knife to his throat, dragged him to their car, opened fire on the church, and then sped away. Later they called the boy’s family demanding an exorbitant amount of money to ransom the boy’s life.
While the immediate motive behind these kidnappings is money, another purpose appears to be to frighten Christian families from sending their children to church. Otherwise, why were both boys kidnapped right in front of their respective churches? (Considering that some Egyptian Islamic clerics deem church attendance as worse than attending bars and brothels, the kidnappers likely deem this the “altruistic” side of their greed and hate.)
Meanwhile, as females, Coptic Christian girls are even more vulnerable than Coptic boys. As an International Christian Concern report puts it, “hundreds of Christian girls … have been abducted, forced to convert to Islam, and forced into marriage in Egypt. These incidents are often accompanied by acts of violence, including rape, beatings, and other forms of physical and mental abuse.”
Most recently, fourteen-year-old Agape Essam Girgis went to school accompanied by a Muslim social worker and two teachers, one of whom was a Salafi, and never returned. After protests, she was eventually “handed over to her family and the church priest where she stayed with his family for some time due to the terrible ordeal she experienced during her abduction.” According to a Coptic bishop involved in the case, what happened to Agape—whose name is based on the biblical word for “brotherly love”—is “heart-breaking.” She was drugged and awakened to find herself in a secluded place with an elderly woman and Salafis who tried to convert her to Islam, forced her to wear the full hijab, and beat her.
A few weeks earlier, fourteen-year-old Sarah Abdelmalek was also abducted on her way to school. Later it was reported that “Sarah was smuggled across the borders to Libya [where Coptic Christians are being brutalized] with the help of the Interior Ministry.” The new Coptic pope said the kidnapping and forced conversion of Sarah is a “disgrace for the whole of Egypt,” adding “Can any family accept the kidnapping of their daughter and her forced conversion?”
And yet, in the last few years, some 550 cases of abduction, entrapment, rape, and forced conversion of Christian women have been documented in Egypt. Their rate has only increased after the “Arab Spring” and the empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood—which has seen a concomitant rise is sexual harassment of all Egyptian women. Ironically, when President Morsi was in Germany last February, he was asked to address the issue of victimized Coptic girls, only to respond by saying the idea that they were being abducted and abused was merely a rumor.
But according to Coptic Solidarity President Adel Guindy: “Any objective and fair review of the cases of forced conversion of Coptic girls, which started four decades ago but dramatically escalated after January 2011 [when the “Arab Spring” reached Egypt], will show a clear pattern of events that point to well organized ‘hidden hands’ behind the process. Amazingly, the collusion of Egypt’s security as well as judiciary authorities—in defiance of the existing laws concerning minors—shows the extent of the scheme. It is part of a ‘war of attrition’ against the Copts in their own homeland.”
Thus, as with any number of recent indicators—including an unprecedented assault on their holiest site and the codification of legal measures to oppress them—the jihad on the children of Egypt’s Christian minority is yet another indicator that a rapidly Islamizing Egypt is hostile to its oldest and most indigenous inhabitants, the Copts, and, as happened to the Jews before them, an example in such societies of what awaits groups considered “other.”
Raymond Ibrahim is author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians. He is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/06/06/jihad-on-egypts-christian-children/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)