Viva la difference
Why can a floozy entertainer stand before the cameras and mock Jesus at the Emmy awards, whereas people everywhere walk on eggshells about Muhammad, and the Swedish government grovels across oceans to find someone to apologize to when a random journalist makes a borderline reference?
Here’s what the “entertainer” had to say upon accepting the reward:
In accepting the Emmy for her show “My Life on the D-List,” Griffin said that “a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus.”
She went on to hold up her Emmy, make an off-color remark about Christ and proclaim, “This award is my god now!”
Of course, she’s factually out of line. I would be astounded — as in shocked — if anyone in recent memory had thanked Jesus for an Emmy. Just not that kinda subculture, ya know? Oh, for the record, we are told that E! edited her comments before airing. But I suspect that just means taking out the foulest allusion that didn’t make it into print. The gist of the slur would be unobjectionable. The Hollywood slobbering over sensitivity and diversity doesn’t encompass Christianity.
But what is the response to this affront? Some theater group in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee takes up a collection and buys a full page ad in USA Today. Asking for what? Nothing in particular. Basically just expressing disappointment, it seems:
Russ Hollingsworth, general manager of The Miracle Theater, said members of the theater’s cast were tired of celebrities joking attitudes toward Jesus. The theater is sponsoring a petition on its Web site, http://www.miracletheater.com.
“When word reached our cast that a Hollywood celebrity had stood before TV cameras and said such vulgar things about Christ, they were incensed,” he said. “It’s just not OK anymore to mock Christians and Jesus with impunity.”
Well, guys, you’re wrong. It is still OK. And it’s OK because they know full well that you aren’t going to riot and smash windows and burn flags and kill people over it. That’s the difference between you and the Islamists. Viva la difference.
Vatican buying carb indulgences
Centuries after they quit selling them, the Vatican is buying them. They’re purchasing a swath of new forest in Hungary that is going to make them the “first carbon neutral state,” which means they can go on heating their offices and driving their cars.
The efficacy of the indulgences, as Martin Luther pointed out nearly 500 years ago, is, to say the least, suspect:
Young forests - dominated by growing trees - soak up lots of carbon dioxide, but once the forests mature, they absorb far less, he said.
Also, “carbon credits” are not a hard currency like a euro or a Hungarian forint, but something far more nebulous, like a stock market future. There is no scientific system for predicting the exact carbon absorbing capacity of a project like the Vatican Forest, whose trajectory depends on rainfall, temperature and how fast trees grow.
“Planting forests will only compensate for a small fraction of emissions, even if you cover all of Hungary in young trees,” Galhidy said.
Gazdag acknowledges that carbon offsetting is not an exact science. “People have only been thinking about offsetting for about 10 years,” he said.
It’s all in the mind. A zen thing. Presumably, with a few more decades of thinking we’ll figure out how to make old forests keep absorbing carbon, and not dump it back as they decay.
When inanity becomes insanity
Powerline flags a really funny CNN three part report on religious warriors hosted by CNN’s resident pseudo-intellectual, Christiane Amampour. The series focuses on radicals within the three great religions–Christian, Jewish and, well, yes, Muslim.
The Christian radicals she explores include a group called Battle Cry, which holds rallies urging kids to “speak out” [as opposed to, say, hurl shrapnel] to reject that crass popular culture all around them. Here’s a clip: note the comical breathlessness of the foppish floozy who introduces the program. Here, per the AP report, Amampour reveals the full extent of her inanity.
In noting how girls at some BattleCry events are encouraged to wear long dresses, Amanpour asks the group’s leader how it is different from the Taliban.
How do you plumb the depths of such contorted insanity? Other segments explore Christians who … home school their children.
[I’m imagining the home school parallel to the hijacking of the Turkish plane this weekend. A group of raging Christians hijacks a public school in Georgia. All the teachers and students are quivering with fear, but the hijackers reassure them: “You are Christian. We are Christian. We will not … home school your children!”]
But the pseudo-intellectual tour continues:
“To the West, martyrdom has a really bad connotation because of suicide bombers who call themselves martyrs,” [Amanpour] said. “Really, martyrdom is actually something that historically was quite noble, because it was about standing up and rejecting tyranny, rejecting injustice and rejecting oppression and, if necessary, dying for that.”
Lady, martyrdom used to be when you had courage of conscience and others who wanted to oppress you would kill you. Martin Luther King, Jesus Christ, and Thomas More were martyrs. Only Islam has martyrs who strap on suicide vests and run into pizza parlors to kill innocent teenagers and earn a boatload of virgins. [You might want to review the origins of the word “assassin.”] Is the difference really lost on you, or are you just playing dumb?
I could go on and on about the vacuity of this woman, but I begin to feel as if I’m shooting fish in a barrel.
Muslims don’t kill muslims
Those reading between the very transparent lines on the Turkish plane hijacking found a familiar theme lurking there. It’s a theme that is so familiar that we hardly even notice it any more:
Hakki Dogusoy, another passenger, said they had promised not to harm those on board. “They said ‘We are Muslims. You are Muslims too. We will not do you any harm‘,” he said.
Just imagine, and try to suppress a smile as you do, a Christian or Hindu hijacker. “We are Christians. You are Christians too. We will not do you any harm.”
Where does this come from? You might start with the Koran, and its wholly undeniable pervasive pulse of hostility toward unbelievers. Culture matters. Texts matter. And texts help shape culture.
Dhimmi, dim or daft?
Bishop Tiny Muskins [look, did I ask about the size of his muskins?] has a bright idea: Catholics start calling God Allah, and Muslims agree to overlook that Trinity thing, we’ll all hold hands and sing Cumbayah, and …
Well, now, uh, Lancelot, Galahad, and I, uh, wait until nightfall, and then leap out of the rabbit, taking the French, uh, by surprise. Not only by surprise, but totally unarmed! ….
… where was I? Oh, yes, Tiny Muskins thinks this might just work:
“Someone like me has prayed to Allah yang maha kuasa (Almighty God) for eight years in Indonesia and other priests for 20 or 30 years,” Muskens said. “In the heart of the Eucharist, God is called Allah over there, so why can’t we start doing that together?”
Muskens thinks it could take another 100 years, but eventually the name Allah will be used by Dutch churches, promoting rapprochement between the two religions, he said, according to Radio Netherlands.
However, a survey published today in the Netherlands’ largest newspaper, De Telegraaf, showed 92 percent of the more than 4,000 people polled oppose the bishop’s view, the Associated Press reported.
Proving that 92% of 4,000 people polled are smarter than one very random Catholic priest.
China does Monty Python
Stop reincarnating! China’s government has laid down the line to those pesky Tibetans:
Tibet’s living Buddhas have been banned from reincarnation without permission from China’s atheist leaders. The ban is included in new rules intended to assert Beijing’s authority over Tibet’s restive and deeply Buddhist people.
“The so-called reincarnated living Buddha without government approval is illegal and invalid,” according to the order, which comes into effect on September 1.
I think any further commentary on this would just be gilding a lily.
Romney off the broken record
Oh my. Unscripted moments like this are so rare and so valuable. The Romney YouTube [below] now making the rounds is potent. It reveals so much–good, bad, and horribly complicated.
The miracle of it is that it is totally unscripted. He goes straight up thinking the tape is not rolling. Recording that without authorization is a capital crime in journalism, and should result in a cold shoulder from other candidates as well. It is very bad form. I am sure I would not have handled it with such dignity.
The second thing to note is that Romney is trying to manage his base. I’ve always argued that the measure of leaders is how successfully they manage their nuts. If they end up at their mercy, then you get nutty policy–i.e., the pell mell rush to evacuate Iraq on the Left. But if you simply give them the finger [like McCain] then you poison your own drinking water. Here, Romney is dealing with a bona fide nut who thinks the whole presidential election hinges persuading the Christian Right in Iowa. He actually wanted Romney to assert that he would ignore the Supreme Court if he didn’t agree with them. This radio host’s universe is painfully small.
Third, this reveals the awkwardness of trying to run as a secular leader with religious values. Romney ties himself in impossible knots by the end of the conversation, trying to argue that his recently discovered prolife beliefs have a totally “secular” foundation. This is nonsense. You can’t separate your view of ultimate reality from your instincts on morally-rooted political questions. Beliefs on what is a healthy society unavoidably intersect with beliefs on Man’s place in the Universe. This is as true of the Left-leaning equalitarian as it is of the Ayn Randian anarchist as it is of a pro-life Governor.
Last, the discussion at the end of specific beliefs of the Second Coming is very problematic, politically. But the double standard is certainly in play. Catholics are not asked to explain transubstantiation, and Protestants are not asked to delve into the troubling nuances of predestination. It must have much to do with the softening of old age. I expect few protestants even really know what their churches teach on predestination.
Navigating that minefield of personal belief and public policy is no easy matter. I’m not sure I could have done any better than Romney under fire. I would say that he handles the whole situation very admirably, on the whole. I should think it would be reassuring to those who fear he is an undercover theocratic.
Hirsi Ali in WaPo
As always, Hirsi Ali lays it on the line, here taking on one of the convenient myths about Islam, namely that it is a religion of tolerance. How often have we heard that quotation: The Qur’an says, “There is no coercion allowed in religion.” (2:256). Always, this quote is offered without context, as if it stood for itself. Ali gives the context, familiar to many, but nearly always glossed over because it is an inconvenient truth.
On the issues of holy war (jihad), apostasy and the treatment of women, the Koran and Sunna are clear. It is the obligation of every Muslim to spread Islam to unbelievers first through dawa, or proselytizing, then through jihad, if the unbelievers refuse to convert. It is the obligation of the unbelievers to accept Islam. Exempted from this edict of conversion are the people of the book: Christians and Jews. Both peoples have a choice. They may adopt Islam and enjoy the same rights as other Muslims, or they may stick to their book and lead the life of a dhimmi (lower citizen). Legally, the rights of the dhimmi are not equal to those of a Muslim. For instance, a Muslim man may take a Jewish or Christian wife, but Jews and Christians are not allowed to marry Muslim women. If a Christian or a Jew kills a Muslim man, they should be killed immediately. In contrast, the blood of a Muslim should never be shed in recompense for the blood of Christians or Jews.
So, you see, the inferior Dhimmi are the people of the book, the special exceptions–Christians and Jews. Hindus and others fall outside that exclusion. How far do they fall and how hard?
“Not even an inkling”
The widow (left) of the lead plotter in the July 7, 2005 London bombings has done a TV interview rich with insight into this problem.
Two thoughts:
1) If a wife could be this clueless–and she does appear sincere–how can the rest of us predict such events by external indicators?
2) There is something so creepy about the severing of social life so that a husband and wife function in totally different worlds. I don’t think this is one of those acceptable cultural difference things. I think it’s just plain creepy.
She said she was still trying to understand everything that had happened. “I am still really confused, to be honest,” she said.
“It is like two different people, I can’t link the two things together at all. I try and I try to piece things together in my head but I don’t know, I’m still trying to come to terms with it myself.”
… She said her husband was dedicated to his faith but she could never imagine “in her wildest dreams” that he was involved in anything more extreme.
She was not aware of who he was mixing with because they lived segregated lives. “I never sat in the same room with his friends, he never sat in the same room as my friends so it is a completely different life, his social life and my social life was completely separated, we would never speak,” she said.
“A lot of the times I’d be out because rather than his friends come round and me having to sit upstairs because we didn’t have two living rooms … I used to go to my mum’s or go to my friends.”
… “I didn’t even have any inkling towards his views even going in that direction - he kept it very well hidden.”
Brits favor domestic terror over foreign imports
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has announced a whole range of new border security and immigration provisions to keep tabs on imported terror:
Taking an early firm stand on terror, Prime Minister Gordon Brown told Parliament on Wednesday that his government would establish a highly visible uniformed border police force that would patrol airports and seaports, a proposal that the Conservatives have long supported.In a wide-ranging package of anti-terror measures that stressed security over winning the hearts of Britain’s Muslim population, Brown said he wanted to extend the period that terror suspects can be held for questioning without charge.
In the longer run, he said, Britain would require biometric visas for all visa applicants after March 2008.
A system of electronic screening to be introduced as soon as possible would enable border officials to check passports of people entering and leaving Britain in real time against a “warnings index” database, he said.
Meanwhile, no plan seems to be available to deal with the homegrown variety, which is just as virulent and has been now for many years:
The great global warming swindle
Here’s the film that has the High Priests of Global Warming issuing fatwas. I’ve long been agnostic on the question of anthropogenic causation, but I have to say the more the orthodoxy tries to stifle dissent, the more suspicious I become of the merits of their case.
As Benjamin Franklin said, “The more he spoke of his honesty, the faster we counted our spoons.”
This is Part I of 8 parts. You can find the rest in the sidebars on YouTube.
An all too fertile field
The Guardian (UK) reports on Al Qaeda in British prisons. Ditto French prisons. And ditto Islamic radicalism in U.S. prisons, where the radicalization of already alienated African-American prisoners proceeds, reducing our ability to keep tabs on foreign vs. home grown plots.
Warith Deen Umar is the former chief Muslim chaplain in the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). Born Wallace Gene Marks, Umar — now 61 — was once an adherent of the Nation of Islam, with the alias Wallace 10X. (NOI is not considered an authentic expression of the Islamic faith by normal Muslims.)
Umar began his activities as a prison chaplain in 1975. New York Gov. George Pataki barred Umar from prisons in 2003, after the Wall Street Journal reported that Umar had expressed support for the 9/11 terrorists — even stating that Muslims “who say they are against terrorism secretly admire and applaud” bin Laden’s mass murderers. (According to Umar, the Koran does not forbid terrorism even against the innocent. “This is the sort of teaching they don’t want in prison,” he said. “But this is what I’m doing.”)
So Pataki banned the guy who raised his head too high, but the problem persists.
What civilization in the history of the world would allow, let alone foment and fund, indoctrination by enemies within its prisons? This is literally a captive audience, and they are almost by definition already alienated from their society’s culture and values in order to arrive there. It is an all too fertile field.
One might think we would even make some effort to counter-indoctrinate, to give them some reason not to kill us when they get out, to insist that only reform-minded clerics serve prisons, for example. But that would be too much to ask of a West grown so open-minded that it’s scatter-brained.
Admire the guts, question the sanity
So this German writer wants to read The Satanic Verses in a Cologne mosque.
Günter Wallraff doesn’t think of himself as a provocateur, he justs wants to get a dialogue going and to put the integration of Muslims in German society to the test. His method is somewhat radical. The well known German writer has said he wants to read aloud from “The Satanic Verses” in a Cologne mosque.
Wallraff denies that his proposal to read from a book regarded by many Muslims as blasphemous is a provocation. Rather, he says, he just wanted the Rushdie book to finally be discussed within the Muslim community.
Uh, yeah, that will get the discussion going. Wallraff, of course, would never consider being provocative:
He traveled to Greece in May 1974 at the time of the Ioannides dictorship. While in Syntagma Square, he protested against human right violations. He was arrested and tortured by the police, as he did not carry, on purpose, any papers on him that could identify him as a foreigner. After his identity was revealed, Wallraff was convicted and sentenced to 14 months in jail. He was released in August, after the end of the dictatorship.[1]
He just wanted to get the discussion going in Greece as well, I guess. Got to admire his guts, even as you question his sanity.
Eric
Whatever dude, Part II
OK, so Protestants can protest. Here a few do in the U.S. Senate chambers as a Hindu cleric tries to say the invocation at the beginning of the day. This is the first time a Hindu has been given this honor, and as you’ll see, a few in the gallery loudly objected.
I’m not quite sure what to make of this. Hindus strike me as decent and sincere people. I can’t think of a substantive, constitutional objection to the honor here. But it does begin to make you wonder about the blending of government institutions and religion.
I noted earlier that Scotland has problems with a “Catholic” church that is 80% Muslim. Likewise, the U.S. will run into problems as consensus on faith erodes. I suspect that before the first Scientoligist or Pagan is invited as guest chaplain, that the idea of having a Senate chaplain at all will be reconsidered.
Yiddish culture without Jews
You may have seen this this NY Times piece on Jewish cultural revival in Poland, sans Jews. It’s ironic and fascinating on numerous levels.
“Jewish style” restaurants are serving up platters of pirogis, klezmer bands are playing plaintive Oriental melodies, derelict synagogues are gradually being restored. Every June, a festival of Jewish culture here draws thousands of people to sing Jewish songs and dance Jewish dances. The only thing missing, really, are Jews.
As Poland contributed so much to Jewish culture and was the heart of so much of the Holocaust. There is something appropriate about the tribute, but also a literal hollowness in the circumstances.
It’s also a reminder of the continuing anti-Semitism in Europe and the Middle East: three million Polish Jews died in the Holocaust that Iran’s current president denies occurred but seems bent on repeating.
Eric
The blood-dimmed tide turns?
WSJ’s James Taranto directs our attention to and usefully unpacks fascinating new research on abortion and public opinion. The upshot: a sharp turn in favor of the pro-life position. This shift is not entirely surprising to pro-life strategists, who argued all along that the dirty details of abortion would gradually turn the public against it. The partial birth abortion debate, which the pro-choice Dems dragged out and highlighted ad naseum, was probably also big.
The finding: Public opinion has moved strongly in the “pro-life” direction. In 1992, 34% of Missouri voters described themselves as “strongly pro-choice”; by 2006 this figure had declined to 23%. The proportion describing themselves as “strongly pro-life” rose from 26% to 36%. When those describing themselves as “somewhat” pro-whatever are included, the “pro-life” rise is 11 percentage points (30% to 41%), and the “pro-choice” decline is 13 points (43% to 30%).
Of course, the public has supported the nuances of pro-life policy for years, from waiting periods to parental consent to bans on late term abortions. It was one of the coups of the Left for decades to have suppressed general knowledge of this consensus from anyone who was not carefully reading polls.
Eric
