Has Anybody Around Here Seen the ACLU?

Sphere: Related Content

This headline, Council: Mongtomery schools cave to pressue with Islam book pretty much says it all.

Washington, D.C. -

A new report issued by the American Textbook Council says books approved for use in local school districts for teaching middle and high school students about Islam caved in to political correctness and dumbed down the topic at a critical moment in its history.

"Textbook editors try to avoid any subject that could turn into a political grenade," wrote Gilbert Sewall, director of the council, who railed against five popular history texts for "adjust[ing] the definition of jihad or sharia or remov[ing] these words from lessons to avoid inconvenient truths.".....

Sewall's report blames publishing companies for allowing the influence of groups like the California-based Council on Islamic Education to serve throughout the editorial process as "screeners" for textbooks, softening or deleting potentially unflattering topics within the faith.

"Fundamentally I'm worried about dumbing down textbooks," he said, "by groups that come to state education officials saying we want this and that - and publishers need to find a happy medium."

This kind of nonsense is seen regularly in the UK which is in full retreat in the face of a rapidly growing, soon to be dominant Muslim wave. The fact that textbooks here in the US which are already frequently twisted to politically correct ends are now caving to Islamist sensibilities is not a good portent for our future.

Maybe someone should call the ACLU.....LOL Just kidding.

Barking Moonbat Early Warning System discusses

Bardot Battles The Barbarians

Sphere: Related Content

This disturbing story in from France:

France's 1960s screen icon Brigitte Bardot was fined 15,000 euro ($A24,440) on Tuesday for inciting hatred against Muslims by attacking the ritual slaughter of animals in Islamic culture.

In December 2006, the film star-turned-animal rights activist wrote to France's then interior minister, now President Nicolas Sarkozy, arguing Muslims should stun animals before slaughtering them during the Eid al-Adha holiday.

She outraged anti-racist groups by saying: "I've had enough of being led by the nose by this whole population which is destroying us, (and) destroying our country by imposing their ways."

Aged 73 and suffering from arthritis, Bardot has been convicted four times before in similar cases. She was absent from today's hearing.

"The court ruled that the comments in question clearly referred to the Muslim community and constituted a legal offence," said judge Nicolas Bonnal.

France is home to Europe's largest Muslim community, estimated at five million people.

Many countries and civilizations have had their freedom taken from them by conquerors but very few have given it away. France and much of the West seems prepared to do just that. It is a sad and bizarre spectacle when a "sex kitten" and former movie star has more courage than supposed "statesmen". Bardot had written to the court saying,

"I'm sickened by how (these organisations) are harassing me. I will not shut up until stunning is carried out" on animals before their ritual slaughter."

Bravo to Bardot. Shame on France.

Stop The ACLU comments

Obama You're No Osama Revisited

Sphere: Related Content

Center for Strategic and International Studies fellow, Edward Luttwak has a particularly interesting op-ed in today's NY Times titled "President Apostate" which has garnered a good deal of blogosphere buzz and the thesis of which is best summed up here:

As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.

Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).

The point is a legitimate one. Of course it is unsurprising that I would find this to be so since it is the same point I made on this blog's second post way back in January as can be seen here. And no I don't think Luttwak somehow found his way into my small corner of the universe and swiped my swell idea. Daniel Pipes raised the idea in an article back in December 2007 as have others. (And no I didn't steal the idea from Pipes or anyone else.) It is a legitimate issue to raise. My thinking on the matter was that although I don't believe that Obama is a Muslim (this emphasis being required so that people don't miss that point, intentionally or otherwise) he may well be perceived as having been one and therefore may now be considered to be an apostate by many Muslims. As I said in the original post:

But the issue can’t just end there. While whether baby-Obama was Muslim or not may or may not matter to you or me there are people to whom it matters a great deal: Muslims. The fact that there is some evidence that he was once an adherent to the faith and now proclaims himself to be a Christian makes him an apostate; and that is not a very good thing to be at all. And the fact that he should be viewed as such has some very real ramifications should he become President.

According to Islamic teaching the punishment for apostasy is death. Now while George W. Bush may be an infidel, the very existence of whom may cause any self-respecting Islamofascist to start sharpening his scimitar, apostates really drives them berserk. We are in completely alien territory when we begin to try determine how, not just Muslim extremists would react to having an apostate as President of the US (although considering how some not unusually nasty cartoons sent them into a tizzy, I’m sure we can all just imagine) but how even more “moderate” Muslims would react.

The effect it would have vis-à-vis relations with the Arab world might be seen if we look at how Muslim countries treat apostates within their legal systems. As it turns out apostates don’t fare very well. In Saudi Arabia apostasy is punishable by death. The death sentence hasn’t been imposed for a number of years however, 300 lashes being the preferred punishment of late. Sudan, Qatar and Mauritania also have codified death as the proper penalty for converts as well. Shari’ah courts in a number of countries also have called for fatwas for the offense. Even as American-friendly a country as Afghanistan recently had a controversy over its prosecution of Abdul Rahman, once Muslim, now Christian. After a loud international outcry he was eventually released, going to Italy with his life intact, if not his nerves.

How exactly would countries whose laws call for the death of apostates work with, negotiate with a US President who is one? Would he be invited to those countries? Would his representatives? How would Pakistan, already unstable, react to such a turn of events? How would it affect the “peace process”?

And what would be the foreign policy implications within the US? The Democrats, who have seemed to adopt a the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend policy toward Islamic radicals while George Bush has been in office may find their blinders ripped off when an ever growing Islamofascist “fringe” makes the central focus of their lives the destruction of, not the hated hillbilly Texan but their own beloved hero.

Luttwak is right in sync with this line of thought:

Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama — not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law — another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.

At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.

That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be. But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world’s Muslims is the least realistic.

There are a lot of factors that go into choosing a President and many people (granted most of them are Lefties) believe that in electing Obama President they'll be getting someone who is more likely to "get along" with the rest of the world. This belief may turn out to be as misguided as many of the ideas of what an Obama Presidency are likely to be. President Obama could find himself even more loathed abroad than *GASP* GW Bush.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A personal aside: My original post about Obama's perceived apostasy was written before this blog was even a glimmer in my eye. It actually originally ran as a post on Redstate.com. To my enormous surprise, within an hour or two of the post being published it was removed and I was banned from Redstate *sniff* never again to be allowed to post there. The actual reaction can be seen here .

When this happened I really didn't know what to think. I didn't think the post was "bigoted" or inappropriate in any other way and yet I was gone. Their actions angered me and made me decide that if I wanted to get my opinions "out there" the best way to do it was to do it myself. Thus Because I'm Right was born. Thank you, Redstate.com.

I have to admit to feeling somewhat vindicated by Luttwak's piece and the good deal of attention that it has gotten, including this comment by Lisa Schiffren on NRO:

Andy and Byron, you make excellent points about the Luttwak piece on the possibilities that a former Muslim president will create more ill-will than good among the Islamic nations.

Numerous other bloggers have discussed the issue (there are links to some of them below) including....Redstate.com. I smiled at that. I really did.

Hot Air comments on a NY Times op-ed on just this subject.
Gina Cobb finds the topic worthy of discussion as well
Outside The Beltway adds their thoughts
Gateway Pundit picks up the story, too.
Abe Greenwald at Commentary Magazine looks at the issue, as well
The Southern Appeal finds it an interesting topic.
BLACKFIVE finds merit in the argument, too.
A Blog For All is also finds sense in the idea.
Ditto for Rhymes With Right

This Just In From Londonistan...

Sphere: Related Content

London continues to pave the way for the eventual takeover of British society by radical Muslims as can be seen in this story. Apparently...

[t]he BBC is facing a High Court challenge over its decision to censor a party political broadcast in the run-up to Thursday’s local elections.

A Christian party has begun legal action after the corporation insisted on changes to a short film in which the party voiced opposition to the building of Europe’s biggest mosque next to the site of the 2012 Olympics.

Tablighi Jamaat, the Islamic missionary group behind the £75 million Abbey Mills mosque, opposes inter-faith dialogue and preaches that non-Muslims are an evil and corrupting influence. One of its British advocates has said that it aims to rescue Muslims from the culture and civilisation of Jews and Christians by creating “such hatred for their ways as human beings have for urine and excreta”.

Acting in the way of most "urine and excreta" the BBC was immediately offended...at the Christian party and tried to change the word

...separatist” — the corporation asked for “controversial” instead — and barred the use of “moderate Muslims” because the phrase implied that Tablighi Jamaat was less than moderate.

The reaction of Islamofascists to this implicit recognition by the BBC that labelling Western Civilization as the product of excretory functions is a "moderate" point of view is unknown, but thought to be quite positive. Although not explicitly stated by any Islamic faction, this particular "excreta" believes that the objection to the word "separatist" may really be due to the fact that separation from British Society is not Tablighi Jamaat's real goal, that real goal being the defeat and destruction of British Society. It is important to be exact, you know.

High Noon In The West

Sphere: Related Content

The invaluable Daniel Pipes has written an article on what he sees as the three most likely possible futures for Europe:

Europe may constitute a mere 7 per cent of the world's landmass but for 500 years, 1450-1950, for good and ill, it was the global engine of change.

How it develops in the future will affect all humanity, especially daughter countries such as Australia that still retain close and important ties to the old continent. I foresee potentially one of three paths for Europe: Muslims dominating, Muslims rejected or harmonious integration.

The first scenario, Muslims dominating, is most famously articulated in Mark Steyn's America Alone. In this possible future, Europe does not wake from its current cultural and demographic stupor. Native Europeans are currently at nowhere near population replacement levels. Liberal guilt, coupled with Socialist economics and moral relativism (highlighted by a rejection of religion) has lulled the continent into a suicidal stupor from which it doesn't wake. Islam, though lacking in the inner dynamism of Western civilization retains its religious fervor coupled with a resentment of the West and a fecundity that leads it to swamping the continent.

The second scenario, Muslims rejected, posits a future in which Europe , at the 11th hour, rouses itself from its stupor and pushes back against the Muslim influx. The result is likely to be bloody and difficult, requiring not just the likely expulsion of large numbers of Muslims but a reconfiguration of dead-end European Socialist economies and a muscular reclamation of European culture.

The final scenario is favored by "most politicians, journalists, and academics, but it has little basis in fact." It basically posits a future in which the idea of either the old style conception of the "melting pot" or the current in-vogue multicultural idea takes hold and Muslims and Europeans mingle happily, happily reveling in the gorgeous mosaic Jesse Jackson likes to bleat about.

Looking around at the current social landscape of Europe it is depressingly easy to assume that the first scenario in which Muslims eventually become ascendant while shunting aside Western culture in the process, is even now taking place. Pipes however, while hardly being an optimist in this matter is a realist first and makes this final point:

Forecasting is difficult because the crisis has not yet struck. But it may not be far off. Within a decade, perhaps, the continent's evolution will become clear as the Europe-Muslim relationship takes shape.

The unprecedented nature of Europe's situation also renders a forecast exceedingly difficult. Never in history has a civilisation peaceably dissolved, nor has a people risen to reclaim its patrimony. Europe's unique circumstances make the outcome difficult to comprehend, tempting to overlook and virtually impossible to predict. With Europe, we all enter into terra incognita.

Whatever the outcome, it will have tremendous ramifications for the US, either pointing the way to our own future or acting as a cautionary tale that might cause us to develop strategies that might yet save the ideals of the West, the best of which have have yet to be equalled by any other culture.

Cross-Posted at Liberty Pundit

The New Goliath!

Sphere: Related Content

If anybody is wondering why attendance at Christian services is down, way down in Europe this story just might help clear the issue up for you.

You see while on the one hand mosques in London are breeding grounds for Muslim extremism and are attracting converts through hate, Rev Robert Harrison, of St John's Church, Hillingdon, in North West London has come up with a way to pass along the Christian message...by retelling the story of David and Goliath...

...from the point of view of the giant - and he is portrayed as a "celebrity" binge drinker who is hung over on the day of his fateful encounter with David.

Oh yeah, let's not forget...

Adam revelling in Eve's naked body

That ought to bring back the faithful, alright.

Cross-linked at Liberty Pundit

Horray For...France?

Sphere: Related Content

It would seem the days of Jacques Chirac really are dead as current French President Nicolas Sarkozy apparently has plans to send 1,000 more troops to Afghanistan, boosting the French troop presence there to close to 3,000. Even more remarkable is the fact that he is doing this while Germany, Italy and Spain are continuing to show their usual spinelessness in the face of Islamofascism.

Since coming to power in May of last year Sarkozy has continued to act in a way that has made it almost difficult to loathe the usually wretched French Republic. On a score of different fronts he's advocated policies and made statements that would make it seem that he doesn't realize that both Europe and France are in a death spiral. Last month, instead of attempting to grovel before the growing ranks of world anti-semitism he said,

"I won't shake hands with people who refuse to recognise Israel."

He's also shown solidarity with the US in opposition to Iran saying,

“Proliferation is a grave threat to international security. We
cannot sit by and do nothing while Iran develops technologies which are in violation of international law.”

And he's even taking a whack at China on environmental issues, threatening to penalize Chinese imports due to the free-ride it gets on carbon-emissions while the EU must meet strict standards, despite China being expected to soon become the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide.

The fact that the US sees Europe as an ally (no matter how unreliable) is threatened by the demographic trend-line in which Muslim immigrants are now on their way to becoming the majority while showing little allegiance to Western culture. Sarkozy, with his personal experience with the Muslim riots that spread across the country in 2005 has shown a desire to try to get a handle on the problem by proposing quotas on immigrants. The fact that he's on the right track can be seen by the comments of a Leftist member of the French commission on social and economic reform who said,

“If we will have quotas for specific nationalities and specific
professions it will lead to a racist policy."

Will Sarkozy be able to stop the boulder of French decline as it careens down the mountain to its ultimate crash landing? Well, he is far from perfect and the cracks are already starting to show. His private life reads like something out of National Enquirer. In fact, it frequently is something that you can read about in the Enquirer. He has a famously short temper that is considerably less than endearing. And he is fighting the entrenched forces of the status quo which are deeply committed to France's current death spiral. His poll numbers have dipped to around 40% approval and his party fared badly in recent municipal elections. But Sarkozy is smart and resourceful so he could well pull himself out of these doldrums.

The question then becomes whether Sarkozy will become the leading edge of a European revival or just the last man who tried? I wouldn't exactly put my money on his chances but it is encouraging to see that there's a least still a little fight left in Europe.

Cross-linked at Liberty Pundit

The Church Of Nothing

Sphere: Related Content

One of the great appeals that religion has had for people throughout history is that, through its particular doctrine a religion makes sense of existence for them. It gives purpose, it sets forth rules to live by and a corresponding moral code. And then there is the Church of England...

"Secret plan to avoid church gay split", a story from Britain's Telegraph website chronicles The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams' latest contortions in trying to hold together the Anglican Church which, largely under his leadership has so chipped away at its own core beliefs that as the saying goes, the center can no longer hold.

As one of the leading forces behind the Church's attempt to mainstream homosexuality and change the Church's longstanding doctrinal opposition to its practice even before his elevation to Archbishop of Canterbury in 2002 Rowan is now in the position of having to try hold the Church together as numerous dioceses and conservative factions threaten to leave the fold. His solution seems as ill considered as are most of his decisions. He plans to create a "parallel" church wherein these conservative factions operate under the guidance of foreign bishops, a sort of religious ghetto for those not fit to consort with decent folk. More liberal bishops are angered that Williams should consider letting these errant forces get their way in even this distorted manner and are threatening trouble of their own.

Williams' problem here and with the difficulty he has found himself in of late, dealing with the growing Muslim population in Britain is that he has placed the liberal mantra of "inclusion"and "diversity" above what should be the eternal doctrine of his church. Religious doctrine cannot by its nature be inclusionary. Christianity is not all things to all people. It makes demands of the faithful, demands cannot be made upon it. It is not fashion, changing with the whims of a given age. For it to have any real value a religion must stand outside of time and fashion. It may try to make itself understood in terms that a particular age may understand but its basic nature must be unchanging if it is to have any real meaning at all.

The Church of England is trying to be all things to all people and is instead becoming the church of nothing, shepherding a flock that is dwindling as quickly as its principles. It is at the vanguard of the forces of nihilism which now are ruling Europe into oblivion. Well, at least that is something it is doing well.

The Long Sundown - The Archbishop And The Eschaton

Sphere: Related Content

Rowan Williams, the 104th and current Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England and spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion has of late gotten himself into a bit of trouble. In a recent radio interview the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Mr. Williams said that he believed that it "seemed unavoidable" that Islamic sharia law would at some point find some sort of accommodation within Great Britain. There then followed quite an amazing reaction with screams of outrage coming from many quarters, indeed: the public, leaders of other religions and even the British Prime Minister who felt the need to make rhetorically clear that "British law must be based on British values". Well!

In truth one has to wonder what all the fuss is about. One would almost think that Britain still retained something of a spine, still had some sort of pride in its national identity, wasn't in a demographic and cultural death spiral. In fact Britain today is in the midst (along with most of its European brethren) of one history's most remarkable acts of national suicide and from the reaction that the Archbishop's comments have engendered it would almost appear that the British people are somehow not aware of this fact. More likely it is just one of the last remaining vestiges of British cultural reflex; it is simply not proper to say certain things out loud...such as the reality of the ongoing British surrender to Islamic culture. How veddy veddy un-British.

Some have said that the end of the British Empire began just as soon as it was noticed that "the sun never sets on" said Empire. Well the Empire rose and the Empire fell, contracting into itself until its colonies shed themselves of their foreign patron leaving Britain, the island nation, alone with its memories of glory and its traditions and the hope of finding its way into a future it had largely set in motion.

For a nation that had throughout history shown such pride-filled vigor it is somewhat surprising that that vigor is now turned to self delusion and self-destruction. The home of world terrorist activity isn't any place in the Arab world it is London, or Londonistan, as French counter-terrorism agents dubbed it in the 1990's as it became the destination of choice for Islamic extremists who were so readily welcomed into “that sceptred isle”. Instead of becoming alarmed at the arrival of such a vast number of shady characters of dubious intentions Britain found itself caught up in the multicultural moment, wherein it was declared gauche to find fault with any culture other than one's own. Taking this sensibility to mad extremes Mother England has gone supine, as members of an alien and hostile culture move in and have started to set up housekeeping, screaming at any imposition of British tradition and now increasingly, law.

Self-loathing has become the new national past-time. Christianity is now only honored in the breach. British history and literature are now only taught in the most superficial of ways. Islamic traditions and customs, many of which are at odds with Western values - the Islamic treatment of women as chattel, the Muslim deprivation of freedom of speech – are increasingly held in higher esteem than those native Western values.

Rowan Williams’s recent comments are hardly the first time he has given voice to ideas that strike out at the heart at what had once been Western culture. At one point he found a moral equivalence between US fighter pilots and Islamic suicide bombers. On another occasion he found those who defend themselves to be no different from those who attack them. On yet another occasion he apologized for Britain bringing Christianity to the rest of the world; an odd sentiment for one who supposedly believes that the belief in Jesus Christ is the road to human salvation.

Rowan Williams is but one member of a nation that has not only seen that the sun has set on the British Empire but is ensuring that sundown is coming to Britain itself. Soon the light that is now flickering will die. The darkness will be cold.

Obama, You're No Osama

Sphere: Related Content

Now that the results of the Iowa Caucus has given Hillary Clinton yet another type of surge from which to recoil in horror, causing her to resort to some truly odd campaign decisions, such as apparently hiring Edmund Muskie’s old campaign manager, it seems like an appropriate time to look at her apparent replacement as the newly anointed savior of America, Senator Barak Obama a little more closely. While the msm treats him with the kind of deference they might reserve for the love-child of Che Guevara and JFK there is much about him that the American people should consider before going into the polling booth, pulling the lever for him and then being carried away in the Rapture.

While it is vaguely known that Obama had some sort of childhood Muslim connection, the specifics of that connection remains hidden by the blinding light of the Senator’s ambition. A review of the information available does show that while his mother was Christian both his natural father and step-father were both Muslims. His given name, Barak Hussein certainly makes that Muslim influence clear. While living in Indonesia as a small child he attended both Christian and Muslims schools. Now there is ample evidence from the time to make a case for the fact that he was, at least in a technical sense, a Muslim. He says today that at no time was he ever anything but a Christian and frankly it is hard to know what was in his heart then or even if what was in the heart of small child has any bearing at all on the man of today. If he says he wasn’t a Muslim, I’m perfectly happy to take his word for it.

But the issue can’t just end there. While whether baby-Obama was Muslim or not may or may not matter to you or me there are people to whom it matters a great deal: Muslims. The fact that there is some evidence that he was once an adherent to the faith and now proclaims himself to be a Christian makes him an apostate; and that is not a very good thing to be at all. And the fact that he should be viewed as such has some very real ramifications should he become President.

According to Islamic teaching the punishment for apostasy is death. Now while George W. Bush may be an infidel, the very existence of whom may cause any self-respecting Islamofascist to start sharpening his scimitar, apostates really drives them berserk. We are in completely alien territory when we begin to try determine how, not just Muslim extremists would react to having an apostate as President of the US (although considering how some not unusually nasty cartoons sent them into a tizzy, I’m sure we can all just imagine) but how even more “moderate” Muslims would react.

The effect it would have vis-à-vis relations with the Arab world might be seen if we look at how Muslim countries treat apostates within their legal systems. As it turns out apostates don’t fare very well. In Saudi Arabia apostasy is punishable by death. The death sentence hasn’t been imposed for a number of years however, 300 lashes being the preferred punishment of late. Sudan, Qatar and Mauritania also have codified death as the proper penalty for converts as well. Shari’ah courts in a number of countries also have called for fatwas for the offense. Even as American-friendly a country as Afghanistan recently had a controversy over its prosecution of Abdul Rahman, once Muslim, now Christian. After a loud international outcry he was eventually released, going to Italy with his life intact, if not his nerves.

How exactly would countries whose laws call for the death of apostates work with, negotiate with a US President who is one? Would he be invited to those countries? Would his representatives? How would Pakistan, already unstable, react to such a turn of events? How would it affect the “peace process”?

And what would be the foreign policy implications within the US? The Democrats, who have seemed to adopt a the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend policy toward Islamic radicals while George Bush has been in office may find their blinders ripped off when an ever growing Islamofascist “fringe” makes the central focus of their lives the destruction of, not the hated hillbilly Texan but their own beloved hero.

All this may not be the sole issue on which people decide who will be getting their votes but if it is not a consideration everyone may be in for a very big surprise.

Hot Air comments on a NY Times op-ed on just this subject.

Gina Cobb finds the topic worthy of discussion as well

Outside The Beltway adds their thoughts

Gateway Pundit picks up the story, too.

Abe Greenwald at Commentary Magazine looks at the issue, as well

The Southern Appeal finds it an interesting topic.