07/06: Religion of Peace?
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
I will give the late Ayatollah Khomeini this much--he was and remains an authoritative voice within Islam: much more so that any number of American academics, media types, or spokesmen for Western Islamic groups speaking to the press. LGF gives this excerpt from a recent book containing primary source material on Islamic terrorism. I think the highlighting is from LGF. As I stated in this earlier post, the person writing or speaking controls the possible meanings of a word. When a Muslim says "Religion of Peace" ask him exactly what he means by "peace." It means the "peace" of submission to Allah, whether you want to or not.
Islam is Not a Religion of Pacifists
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, 1942
Islam’s jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression, and cruelty. The war waged by [non-Islamic] conquerors, however, aims at promoting lust and animal pleasures. They care not if whole countries are wiped out and many families left homeless. But those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God’s law]. ...
Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does that mean that Muslim should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill the [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!
There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.
(An Okie Gardener Again) As I wrote earlier, not only the future of the West, but the future of Islam is at stake in this war. I foresee increasing conflict for the near future.
Islam is Not a Religion of Pacifists
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, 1942
Islam’s jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression, and cruelty. The war waged by [non-Islamic] conquerors, however, aims at promoting lust and animal pleasures. They care not if whole countries are wiped out and many families left homeless. But those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God’s law]. ...
Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does that mean that Muslim should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill the [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!
There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.
(An Okie Gardener Again) As I wrote earlier, not only the future of the West, but the future of Islam is at stake in this war. I foresee increasing conflict for the near future.
John Adams purportedly told his son, JQA, that considering all the blessings and advantages that his family and Providence had bestowed upon the younger Adams, it would be his fault alone, if he did not become president of the United States. Although that statement has always struck me as incredibly harsh, perhaps it is the appropriate key in which to begin a discussion of the political life and times of Albert Gore, Jr.
The Harvard-educated, senator’s son and ambivalent Vietnam veteran sampled divinity school, law school and journalism before he won election to Congress from Tennessee’s fourth district in 1976 and then a senate seat in 1984. He ran for the Democratic Party nomination for president in 1988 and lost. He ran for vice president in 1992 and won. He ran for president in 2000 and lost (although he won the popular vote).
During the 1980s, he absorbed criticism (mostly directed at Tipper) from First Amendment advocates who charged that the Gores favored censorship of recording artists. His 1988 campaign for the Democratic nomination seemed to lack purpose and definitely wanted for charisma.
During his tenure as VP, he acquired a national persona as the wonkish, stiff and boring but loyal Clinton sidekick (although he countered that perception with a humorous, self-deprecating comedy bit). But no matter how hard he tried to blend his Southern Evangelical Populist lineage with his Washington-insider and Eastern-educated acculturation, the public never embraced him as much more than a parody of himself. Even the “liberal” media seemed reluctant to give him a fair shake (regularly laughing at him—and only occasionally with him).
In 2000, he ran for a Clinton-Gore “third term” and failed. He came close (only losing by 537 votes in Florida and one vote in the United States Supreme Court); but, nevertheless, he lost, squandering a good political hand.
Then, Gore seemed to slip off the face of the earth during the first few months of the Bush administration and, especially, after 911. He grew a beard. He grew fleshy. He seemed completely dislocated from politics and reality. Even Democrats seemed relieved that he was not president during the unexpectedly pivotal period in American history.
But, just as suddenly, Al Gore is back.
The Harvard-educated, senator’s son and ambivalent Vietnam veteran sampled divinity school, law school and journalism before he won election to Congress from Tennessee’s fourth district in 1976 and then a senate seat in 1984. He ran for the Democratic Party nomination for president in 1988 and lost. He ran for vice president in 1992 and won. He ran for president in 2000 and lost (although he won the popular vote).
During the 1980s, he absorbed criticism (mostly directed at Tipper) from First Amendment advocates who charged that the Gores favored censorship of recording artists. His 1988 campaign for the Democratic nomination seemed to lack purpose and definitely wanted for charisma.
During his tenure as VP, he acquired a national persona as the wonkish, stiff and boring but loyal Clinton sidekick (although he countered that perception with a humorous, self-deprecating comedy bit). But no matter how hard he tried to blend his Southern Evangelical Populist lineage with his Washington-insider and Eastern-educated acculturation, the public never embraced him as much more than a parody of himself. Even the “liberal” media seemed reluctant to give him a fair shake (regularly laughing at him—and only occasionally with him).
In 2000, he ran for a Clinton-Gore “third term” and failed. He came close (only losing by 537 votes in Florida and one vote in the United States Supreme Court); but, nevertheless, he lost, squandering a good political hand.
Then, Gore seemed to slip off the face of the earth during the first few months of the Bush administration and, especially, after 911. He grew a beard. He grew fleshy. He seemed completely dislocated from politics and reality. Even Democrats seemed relieved that he was not president during the unexpectedly pivotal period in American history.
But, just as suddenly, Al Gore is back.
07/06: Slavery Today
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Dhimmi Watch today links to this article on a recent State Department report on modern slave trafficking and Iran. The full-text of the State Department 2006 report on Human Trafficking is here.
The article in full reads
London, Jun. 06 – The United States put Iran among the main countries engaged in human trafficking.
A report released by the U.S. State Department described Iran as a “source, transit, and destination country for women and girls trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and involuntary servitude”.
The report cited cased of women and girls being trafficked to Pakistan, Turkey, the Gulf, and Europe for sexual exploitation.
“Boys from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are trafficked through Iran en route to the Gulf states where they are ultimately forced to work as camel jockeys, beggars, or labourers”, the report said.
“Women and children are trafficked internally for the purposes of forced marriage, sexual exploitation, and involuntary servitude”, it said, adding, “The Government of Iran does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so”.
The annual report downgraded Iran to a Tier 3 trafficking country after “persistent, credible reports of Iranian authorities punishing victims of trafficking with beatings, imprisonment, and execution”.
Iran now joins 11 other nations regarded as the worst offenders on the blacklist.
“The Government of Iran did not improve its protection of trafficking victims this year”, it said, adding, “Child victims of commercial sexual exploitation reportedly have been executed for their purported crime of prostitution or adultery. For instance, one 16-year-old sex trafficking victim was hanged publicly by religious authorities who accused her of engaging in "acts incompatible with chastity." The governor of the town later congratulated the religious leader for his ‘firm approach’”. (cont.)
The article in full reads
London, Jun. 06 – The United States put Iran among the main countries engaged in human trafficking.
A report released by the U.S. State Department described Iran as a “source, transit, and destination country for women and girls trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and involuntary servitude”.
The report cited cased of women and girls being trafficked to Pakistan, Turkey, the Gulf, and Europe for sexual exploitation.
“Boys from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are trafficked through Iran en route to the Gulf states where they are ultimately forced to work as camel jockeys, beggars, or labourers”, the report said.
“Women and children are trafficked internally for the purposes of forced marriage, sexual exploitation, and involuntary servitude”, it said, adding, “The Government of Iran does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so”.
The annual report downgraded Iran to a Tier 3 trafficking country after “persistent, credible reports of Iranian authorities punishing victims of trafficking with beatings, imprisonment, and execution”.
Iran now joins 11 other nations regarded as the worst offenders on the blacklist.
“The Government of Iran did not improve its protection of trafficking victims this year”, it said, adding, “Child victims of commercial sexual exploitation reportedly have been executed for their purported crime of prostitution or adultery. For instance, one 16-year-old sex trafficking victim was hanged publicly by religious authorities who accused her of engaging in "acts incompatible with chastity." The governor of the town later congratulated the religious leader for his ‘firm approach’”. (cont.)
07/06: Senate Hypocrisy
While the opponents to the President's Federal Marriage Amendment stand in the well of the Senate and decry the political cynicism of the Republicans and enumerate all the issues purportedly sacrificed in order to debate this issue, they are filibustering the resolution. That is, instead of calling the question, which all parties seem to acknowledge lacks the necessary two-thirds for passage, the opponents cravenly block a vote that would put their opposition on record.
As many of you know, I am a filibuster defender. I love the image of Jefferson Smith (Jimmy Stewart) talking himself hoarse in defense of principle. I believe that the filibuster represents the spirit of James Madison, who envisioned the Senate as a slow-moving, consensus-building department of government.
However, this is not a filibuster born out of principle. This is an attempt to CYA. Either call the question and vote, or stop the hypocritical rhetoric.
As many of you know, I am a filibuster defender. I love the image of Jefferson Smith (Jimmy Stewart) talking himself hoarse in defense of principle. I believe that the filibuster represents the spirit of James Madison, who envisioned the Senate as a slow-moving, consensus-building department of government.
However, this is not a filibuster born out of principle. This is an attempt to CYA. Either call the question and vote, or stop the hypocritical rhetoric.
A round-up of highlights on the Federal Marriage Amendment, FMA (for those of you who may have missed some of these in the comments section).
1. The Text of the President's proposed Amendment:
"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
2. Many conservatives have noted that the media's coverage of this story is from the poltical angle (that is, "here are the political reasons why the President is advancing this proposal") rather than a discussion of the issue in question.
Rod Dreher commenting on his blog yesterday, agreed with the President in principle (in this post ), but took GOP strategists to task for cynically "appealing to anti-gay prejudice [and] stoking an emotional issue transparently for political gain." Today, Dreher expertly points out how cynical the Democrats are in their rhetoric (in this post).
Dennis Prager had a great piece on Real Clear Politics today, in which he offered an extremely cogent analysis of the question, the division and the issue:
In part:
"Some of those who want a constitutional amendment to define marriage as man-woman are indeed bigoted against gays, regarding them as something less than fully human. But most people who want to maintain marriage as male-female consider homosexuals to be just as much created in the image of God as anyone else. But though it is painful for us to see a perfectly decent homosexual unable to marry a person of the same sex, we are nevertheless more preoccupied with:
"(1) Giving every child the opportunity to at least begin life with a mother and father; (2) Honoring the will of the great majority of Americans, secular and religious, liberal and conservative, to preserve the man-woman marital ideal, and not allow a judge to single-handedly destroy that ideal; (3) Preserving the ability of teachers and clergy to tell the story of marriage to young children in terms of a man and woman and not confuse the vast majority of kids who are forming their vision of marriage and sexuality.
"These preoccupations are neither bigoted nor radical. They are, in our view, civilization-saving.
"As for the liberals' view that gas prices are more important than society's definition of marriage, it is so self-incriminating that no response is needed."
The full Prager article.
3. Is this conservative? The RCP Blog roundup featured this from Charles Krauthammer, who appeared on FOX News with Britt Hume last night:
"But I think the answer is not a constitutional amendment, which would be in the name of the popular sovereignty, but ironically, it takes it away, because if you ever had a state in which a majority wanted to institute gay marriage, it would not be allowed to under this constitution. So it's a little bit contradictory, to act in the name of popular sovereignty and to pass a law which would extinguish.
"The way you do it is change the ethos of the judiciary so that if you get the Defense of Marriage Act, which he spoke about earlier, at the Supreme Court, it's upheld and that it keeps it in one state and doesn't spread it all over the country. And having a president who nominates a guy like Sam Alito is a way in which we change that culture rather than changing the constitution."
1. The Text of the President's proposed Amendment:
"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
2. Many conservatives have noted that the media's coverage of this story is from the poltical angle (that is, "here are the political reasons why the President is advancing this proposal") rather than a discussion of the issue in question.
Rod Dreher commenting on his blog yesterday, agreed with the President in principle (in this post ), but took GOP strategists to task for cynically "appealing to anti-gay prejudice [and] stoking an emotional issue transparently for political gain." Today, Dreher expertly points out how cynical the Democrats are in their rhetoric (in this post).
Dennis Prager had a great piece on Real Clear Politics today, in which he offered an extremely cogent analysis of the question, the division and the issue:
In part:
"Some of those who want a constitutional amendment to define marriage as man-woman are indeed bigoted against gays, regarding them as something less than fully human. But most people who want to maintain marriage as male-female consider homosexuals to be just as much created in the image of God as anyone else. But though it is painful for us to see a perfectly decent homosexual unable to marry a person of the same sex, we are nevertheless more preoccupied with:
"(1) Giving every child the opportunity to at least begin life with a mother and father; (2) Honoring the will of the great majority of Americans, secular and religious, liberal and conservative, to preserve the man-woman marital ideal, and not allow a judge to single-handedly destroy that ideal; (3) Preserving the ability of teachers and clergy to tell the story of marriage to young children in terms of a man and woman and not confuse the vast majority of kids who are forming their vision of marriage and sexuality.
"These preoccupations are neither bigoted nor radical. They are, in our view, civilization-saving.
"As for the liberals' view that gas prices are more important than society's definition of marriage, it is so self-incriminating that no response is needed."
The full Prager article.
3. Is this conservative? The RCP Blog roundup featured this from Charles Krauthammer, who appeared on FOX News with Britt Hume last night:
"But I think the answer is not a constitutional amendment, which would be in the name of the popular sovereignty, but ironically, it takes it away, because if you ever had a state in which a majority wanted to institute gay marriage, it would not be allowed to under this constitution. So it's a little bit contradictory, to act in the name of popular sovereignty and to pass a law which would extinguish.
"The way you do it is change the ethos of the judiciary so that if you get the Defense of Marriage Act, which he spoke about earlier, at the Supreme Court, it's upheld and that it keeps it in one state and doesn't spread it all over the country. And having a president who nominates a guy like Sam Alito is a way in which we change that culture rather than changing the constitution."
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Powerline today, on the anniversary of D-Day, offers some provocative thoughts on whether or not we honor our WW2 veterans. The article is prompted by, and links to, this essay in the Opinion Journal.
The Opinion Journal editorial by David Gelernter, written in 2004, argues that if we were truly to honor our WW2 vets we would teach in our schools, at a minimum 1. The Major Battles of the War, 2. The bestiality of the Japanese, 3. The attitude of the intellectuals. 4. The Veterans' Neglected Voice (allowing vets to speak and enabling them publish and record). (cont.)
The Opinion Journal editorial by David Gelernter, written in 2004, argues that if we were truly to honor our WW2 vets we would teach in our schools, at a minimum 1. The Major Battles of the War, 2. The bestiality of the Japanese, 3. The attitude of the intellectuals. 4. The Veterans' Neglected Voice (allowing vets to speak and enabling them publish and record). (cont.)
Category: Friends of the Bosque Boys
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
This kata onar comment, abstracted from the Tiananmen Square Rembered post , deserves more prominence:
Thanks so much for this posting, Okie Gardner. I had a friend in college who was in China as a missionary when the Tiananmen Square massacre took place. I received a letter from her about month after the massacre. Her letter was an amazing mix of both terror and faith. Here's a quote from her letter:
"It's really difficult to know what to expect because the government is so unpredictable. Also, we aren't sure if we'll have any students! At this point we don't know how many are still even alive after the bloody suppresion. And those still living, they are scared to death to return to the school for fear of being arrested and imprisoned if not executed. It's comforting to know that their lives and our lives are not in the hands of the army or the leaders, but in God's."
Everytime I read this, I can't help but be amazed at the true freedom that faith brings. In the face of such tyranny, faith provided peace and freedom for my friend or her students. May our prayers--and buying habits--be made also for the political freedom of the people of China.
kata onar
Thanks so much for this posting, Okie Gardner. I had a friend in college who was in China as a missionary when the Tiananmen Square massacre took place. I received a letter from her about month after the massacre. Her letter was an amazing mix of both terror and faith. Here's a quote from her letter:
"It's really difficult to know what to expect because the government is so unpredictable. Also, we aren't sure if we'll have any students! At this point we don't know how many are still even alive after the bloody suppresion. And those still living, they are scared to death to return to the school for fear of being arrested and imprisoned if not executed. It's comforting to know that their lives and our lives are not in the hands of the army or the leaders, but in God's."
Everytime I read this, I can't help but be amazed at the true freedom that faith brings. In the face of such tyranny, faith provided peace and freedom for my friend or her students. May our prayers--and buying habits--be made also for the political freedom of the people of China.
kata onar
06/06: The Tyranny of Relativism
Archbishop George Pell, an intellectual hero of mine, addresses the danger of relativism in this speech. The belief that all "truths" are mere matters of opinion, leads to
"Looked at in this way an education in relativism seems more like a recipe for disenfranchisement and passivity than empowerment. If you want people to move the world it actually helps if you put some ground under their feet. This is one of the things that Christianity does. As Pope Benedict said elsewhere in his pre-conclave homily, 'A faith profoundly rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature. This friendship opens us to all that is good and gives us the measure to discern between what is true and what is false, between deceit and truth". Having a "measure to discern between what is true and what is false, between deceit and truth", is the source of empowerment, and the lasting basis for concern and compassion for others."
"Looked at in this way an education in relativism seems more like a recipe for disenfranchisement and passivity than empowerment. If you want people to move the world it actually helps if you put some ground under their feet. This is one of the things that Christianity does. As Pope Benedict said elsewhere in his pre-conclave homily, 'A faith profoundly rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature. This friendship opens us to all that is good and gives us the measure to discern between what is true and what is false, between deceit and truth". Having a "measure to discern between what is true and what is false, between deceit and truth", is the source of empowerment, and the lasting basis for concern and compassion for others."
06/06: Remembering Ronald Reagan
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Wizbang has this posting in rememberance of Ronald Reagan who died on June 5, 2004. There are links to several of Reagan's speeches, and links to other sites on the web remembering the Great Communicator. One of the quotes posted is
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Ronald Reagan
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Ronald Reagan
05/06: Marriage and Divorce
A Waco Farmer is correct that the larger context for same-sex marriage debate is the weakening of the institution of marriage. And, he is correct in pointing out that Christian churches have, in many respects, allowed their own attitudes toward divorce and remarriage to be imported from the larger culture.
For what it may be worth, below is a list of Scriptures concerning marriage, and a pastoral letter I wrote a while back, giving my understanding of divorce and remarriage from a Christian perspective.
For what it may be worth, below is a list of Scriptures concerning marriage, and a pastoral letter I wrote a while back, giving my understanding of divorce and remarriage from a Christian perspective.
