The world focused on the Northern areas of Pakistan to capture or kill the al-Qaeda or Taliban operatives. But the harsh reality is that even if these operatives are eliminated, there are other outfits in the rest of the southern part of Pakistan that have the same aims, will and training as that of al-Qaeda or Taliban.

After 2001 Pakistanis were spoon fed the propaganda that the violence in Pakistan is due to America’s presence in Afghanistan. As a result, many hate the U.S. intervention and see Islamists as the defenders of Pakistani sovereignty. Those who support the Islamists for their religious beliefs are relatively few in number, but they are better organized. The arrests of extremists depends on the willingness of Pakistan’s secret agencies and/or the influence of the Saudi government.

The dual policy of keeping the U.S. happy while supporting the terrorist outfits was charted out by the then-President of Pakistan Gen. Pervez Musharraf. He half-heartedly banned some 23 organizations but failed — deliberately — to bring their sponsors to justice.

The story of Southern part of Pakistan is much scarier than the Northern part. Just as the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approached, those “banned” outfits were on the rise, exploiting the anti-Americanism in the country and misusing the name of religion.

Jaish-e-Muhammad, the group blamed for an attack on the Indian parliament, is the second largest jihadi group in Southern Punjab. It carries out regular public gatherings and has strong influence in the U.K., Europe, Dubai, Saudi Arabia and even in the U.S. Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi was their financial patron-in-chief at one point. Another major financer is Saudi Arabia.

JeM changed its name a few times because of the “ban.” It went from Khudam-al-Islam to Al Rehmat Trust International to Usman Trust. Currently it is operating under the banner of Al Shafi Islamic Medical. Its publications were never out of print.

The failed Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, spent much of his time at a JeM madrassa in Karachi. He was transported to the North later by Laskhar-e-Jhangvi for further training.

LeJ’s parent organization — Sipah Sahaba Pakistan — changed its name from Millat-e-Islamia to International Quran Movement to Ehle Sunnat wa Jamaat. Its propaganda organ publications were available to the masses outside mosques and various market places.

The LeJ formed and operated its new wing, also known as Lashkar e Jhangvi al Almi (LeJ International). With its headquarters in Pakistan, it covers Europe and the U.K. The LeJ is organized into small cells of around eight cadres each, who operate independently of the others.

LeJ leader Malik Ishaq told an Urdu newspaper about his involvement in the killings of 102 people. He was allowed a stipend and provided a mobile phone in jail. Ishaq was released this year after the courts found no evidence against him.

Gen. Musharraf’s government carried out just one operation against the Islamic fundamentalists, under pressure from the Chinese government, when he ordered the Red Mosque Siege. Pakistani intelligence officials said they found letters from Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to the leaders of the mosque, directing them to conduct an armed revolt. One of the leaders was released by the courts later.

The LeJ, JeM and Harkat ul Jihad-e-Islami (HuJI) formed a common front called Lashkar-e-Umer with countrywide branches for close cooperation and pooled resources. These groups still support each other in one form or another.

The Karachi-based Al Rasheed Trust, was “banned” and listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department on September 22, 2001. The group is still operating and its chief was one of the few who had direct access to bin Laden.

Similarly, another group, the Falah-e-Isnaniyat Foundation (FIF) is linked with Lashkar and Jamat-al-Dawa and protected by the security establishment. These groups are also supported and funded by the Saudis.

The freehand operations of these groups have radicalized Pakistani society. Anti-Americanism spreads while Arabization has taken hold.

There are more and more mosques in each city, many run by such outfits. In some places three separate mosques of different sects are built next to each other. The sermons delivered there go unchecked and ultimately fuel the hatred and twisted ideology of dividing Muslims and bringing ‘sharia’ of their liking to the world. Public Billboards promoting jihad and hatred of America are everywhere cloaked as appeals for “charity.”

Pakistan’s internal crises include a deep cynicism that has seeped into every nook and cranny of everyday life. Politically, the army continues to run the popular narrative. Socially, if liberals talk about rapprochement with India, they’re accused of being controlled by RAW, the C.I.A. or the Zionists — or all three. The radical view that it’s acceptable to kill Shi’a, Ahmadis, Hindus and Christians and destroy their places of worship is widespread.

Because of this chaos, ordinary Pakistanis who want to travel, work and study abroad are finding it harder to do so. In the eyes of many immigration officials around the world, to be Pakistani is synonymous with being a criminal.

It’s been said many times that 9/11 changed the world. After the attacks, Afghanistan and Pakistan felt the heat.

Ten years later, the diseases that had been contained in Pakistan metastasize more rapidly than ever. Pakistan’s militants, all of them, are a threat to international peace. If the West’s strategy for combating radicalism continues on its present parochial course, the world will feel the heat.

Does Pakistan suffer today because of his death? Yes. Does it change anything on the ground? No. 

He was slain because he called the notorious blasphemy law as black law. He stood up for a Christian woman who was accused of blasphemy and was sentenced to death by a local court. Taseer wanted his government to repeal the blasphemy law that was incorporated in the 1980s by the military dictator General Ziaul Haq. It was a legitimate demand. In his own words, “these are man made laws and men can correct this”. 

These black laws will now be repealed or not? This does not change anything on the ground either. 

Nothing will change on the ground because nothing changed a decade ago when a Christian cricket player on the national team was allegedly forced to convert. Nothing changed when pop singers one after another started denouncing their own careers and joined the elite mullah ranks. Not a thing changed when two boys were lynched publicly just last year. These were the obvious symptoms of a society turning intolerant, self-righteous, and violent. A society without the respect for law and order. 

It changed nothing back then, it will not change anything now. Hence, the events that followed Salmaan Taseer’s gruesome murder are disturbing. These events have nothing to do with a religion, or its preaching, but everything to do with the mindset that has been developed over the years. Evidently, this mindset is irrespective of class. The jubilant response on Facebook and YouTube was not by the uneducated and madrassa clan. A Pakistani blogger summed it up well: “If you go through the profiles of Qadri supporters on Facebook, you’d think Justin Bieber was the cause of extremism in Pakistan.” 

The killer’s overwhelming welcome at the courts by men who know how and why a law is made demonstrates that the liberals – a minority in Pakistan – have been reduced to an endangered species.  

And that is what has changed. And that is what matters today on the ground in Pakistan. 

Do a little math. The killer is a 26 year old man and hails from a semi-urban area. He joined the Elite force in 2003 which means he was 18 then. General Musharraf toppled a democratic government in 1999, and the killer must have been 14. And this is the age group that’s using the Internet, Facebook, YouTube and blogs more aggressively. This is the age group that went through a whole “moderate enlightenment” phase fully sponsored by Pervez Musharraf and shamelessly supported by George Bush for almost over a decade. And this is the group that has the street power in Pakistan. This is the group that is the future of Pakistan. Its mind has been infiltrated by private television, launched during Musharraf’s era. Instead of promoting freedom of speech, it promoted violence, illiteracy and conspiracy theories. It produced the “I-know-more-than-you-know-coz-I-like-that-anchor-and-you-dont-watch-that-show” minds, whereas before young men from the same age group used to extract influence from their family heads. 

The dual game of the military government ten years ago, fully supported and encouraged by the US government, produced a whole generation that detests its own constitution and Western freedom of speech values. This generation is the raw material available to and exploited by religious groups, ready to kill and get killed. My philanthropist friend Manzur Ejaz believes that the right wing in Pakistan is organized and has ideological strength. It has been supported by the State machinery through an education system and infested state institutions, while its opposition lacks committed people, organization and a cause. 

This sorry state of Pakistan is pretty much an example of Martin Niemoller’s ‘First They Came.’ 

They came first for the Communists,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.



Then they came for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up.

This existing situation has nothing to do with the drone attacks carried out today or the policy changed in favor of Pakistan. The ruling party was once considered a liberal group, but now its own members and sitting ministers publicly announced that they will shoot a blasphemer themselves. They align themselves with so-called “moderate” Muslim politicians like Imran Khan who have practiced Western values but sympathise with the Taliban. 

This indicates that now the dominant political philosophies are right, center to right and very right groups. It has men that have a soft heart for fundamentalists. The absence of a left–because the representative parties or groups were systematically dismantled by military dictators–will bring more extremism. 

Persons with liberal thoughts need protection, which requires some strategy as well as strength. It has to organize itself and build an anti-mullah manpower. It’s a war now, and decisions taken today will reflect the systems adopted in the future. And that will change everything on the ground.

–
Crosspost: ThePakistanUpdate.com

You may have heard that Barbara Walters included Sarah Palin as one of the “Top 10 Most Fascinating People.” And after the taping, Walters made condescending comments about Palin to Robin Roberts on Good Morning America after Palin had the grace to sit down with her. If I was Gov. Palin, I would add Walters to the list with Katie Couric. But that’s just me.

Now Richard Wolffe, the MSNBC toady, I mean, analyst, has had some smack to say about Palin from that very interview. About what does he make fun of her for saying? That she reads C.S. Lewis.

Huh?

You may recall back during the 2008 election, liberals were upset with Palin for her conservative faith. Heck, even the Washington Post was writing about her “pastor problem.” Palin’s pastor problem – because, well, you know, Obama didn’t have one. Ahem (and the JournoListers made damn sure many people didn’t know he had one).

Yes, Richard Wolffe made fun of Palin for saying she reads C.S. Lewis for “divine inspiration.” Oh, yes he did:

[snip] Appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball” with Chris Matthews, Wolffe expressed incredulity, noting that Lewis wrote “a series of kids’ books.”

Matthews interrupted Wolffe: “I wouldn’t put down C.S. Lewis.”

“I’m not putting him down,” Wollfe responded. “But you know divine inspiration? There are things she could’ve said to divine inspiration. Choosing C.S. Lewis is an interesting one.”

Aside from authoring popular children’s books like the “Chronicles of Narnia,” Lewis was known as a Christian apologist who authored a number of books on religion, like “Mere Christianity.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Okay, you know it is bad when even Tweety jumps in there at Wolffe’s statement. But Matthews has a point. C.S. Lewis was a well-regarded scholar, erudite, intelligent, and a prolific writer of books on Christianity. One would think after criticizing her for being too conservative that her choice of this scholar, contemporary of, and friends with, J.R.R. Tolkien would have gotten her a bit of a break. But no.

Wolffe, in his PDS state can only make fun of her, apparently assuming she was referring to the “Chronicles of Narnia,” the children’s series. That is but one part of the numerous books Lewis wrote about Christianity. Perhaps, since Wolffe is apparently unfamiliar with the author, he doesn’t even have to look it up. He can watch “Shadowlands” and learn all about the life and works of C.S. Lewis. That will only take him a couple of hours. Shoot, I bet he can stream it from NetFlix.

No, it is just so much more fun to put Palin down for ANYTHING she says. I swear to the goddess, if she lived during the time Jesus walked the earth, she could say she
sat down and talked with him for divine inspiration. No doubt, Wolffe would find a way to put her down for that. He might say something like she hung out with blue collar carpenter whose friends were a bunch of fishermen, and – GASP – women! What a joke!

This is the same crap they did to Hillary time and time again. It is so, so tiresome to see this “damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t” mentality ever present with those in the media. I’m sick of it.

And I am sick of the constant “gotcha” mentality of the media toward Palin (and Clinton) ever present. Why did Palin even mention reading C.S. Lewis? Because Barbara Walters, a la Couric, asked her what she read. I kid you not. Oh, and she also said to Palin, “Many find the idea of you as president ‘scary.’” Wow. I’m sorry, but that’s just rude.

Unfortunately, I am sure this is far from over, especially as 2012 approaches. I mean, really – when reading C.S. Lewis becomes fodder for put downs, well, that says it all, doesn’t it?

Well, this will be my last post for a while. Again, I want to thank everyone for their warm support and encouragement of me as I prepare to have my knee replaced on September 9th. It means more to me than I can say.

Before I go, I want to highlight a few of the issues that we have been discussing over the past few months. First up is the Cordoba House, the mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf wants to build close to Ground Zero. Rauf penned an Op-Ed for the NY Times on the mosque, and the desire to build it there (though it seems short on an explanation of why there). Below is a dialogue between Bill Hemmer and Father Jonathan Morris:

I think Father Morris summed it up when he said that along with rights, comes respect (paraphrasing there). Rauf’s editorial may appear to be rational and reasonable, but there seem to be a few digs in there, to be sure. Read it for yourself and decide.

Next up is the issue of Obamacare, and what it is going to mean to us in the short run. Oh, I think you can guess – it is going to cost us more money. Surprise!!! Except it isn’t to those of us who were paying attention. We knew this was going to cost more money than save it, and we knew the numbers the Democrats used to get this passed were, um, inaccurate. So, get ready to empty out your wallets:

Then there is Obama’s homage to the Unions with his new $50 billion proposal. Why is it an homage to the unions? Because the money is supposed to go for infrastructure purposes. Which is fine – we need that. But, as you may recall, in February, 2009, Obama signed an order that federal contracts have to look to the unions first. And only 16% of construction workers are unionized. Soooooo – this $50 billion is just a payback to his major supporters. It also costs more, according to this Washington Post article. Wheee!!!!

Here’s Stuart Varney to fill us in on the details:

Well, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – the unions are sure getting their money’s worth, aren’t they? Not so much the rest of us, though. Ha – there’s a surprise.

Finally, the 9th anniversary of 9/11 is just a few days away. I want to leave you with this story about the World Trade Towers then, and what they plan for the future:

Brings tears to my eyes. I love the waterfalls they have planned in the foot prints of the towers. They are beautiful – soothing, yet strong.

What a day that was, one we will not soon forget. At least I hope we do not…

Again, thank you all for your loving support. It means the world to me. You will be in my heart while I am away.

And just what is this issue? Well, Gibbs is now trying to convince people that Obama is really a mainstream Christian, not one who buys into Black Liberation Theology, as this article from the Daily Caller, White House Distances Obama From Liberation Theology, highlights.

Um, what? Since when? Well, since Gibbs decided to make this ridiculous claim followng Glenn Beck’s recent rally in Washington, DC:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs implied Thursday that President Obama does not subscribe to a version of Christianity dubbed as “liberation theology,” and argued that the president’s beliefs are more akin to traditional Protestantism.

“The president is a committed mainstream Christian,” Gibbs said, when asked whether Fox News personality Glenn Beck has been correct in describing Obama’s faith system as “liberation theology.”

“I have no evidence that would guide me as to what Glenn Beck would have any genuine knowledge to what the president actually does or does not believe,” Gibbs said.

Gibbs did not say outright that the president rejects liberation theology, which in general interprets the gospel of Jesus Christ as primarily a mandate to help the poor and needy, but also has many streams and variations on finer matters and points of emphasis.

“I don’t know the answer to that,” Gibbs said. When pressed again, he said, “I can only imagine where [Beck] conjured that from.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

He doesn’t know from where Glenn Beck got that idea? Really?

Well, perhaps Spokesweasel Gibbs should have watched the following video before making such an assertion:

Or maybe Gibbs should have done a little Google search on Black Liberation Theology, TUCC, and Jeremiah Wright. He would have found articles like this one, “Black Liberation Theology, In Its Founders Words.” And in this particular story, he would have noted very clear connections between Black Liberation Theology, TUCC, and Jeremiah Wright.

Oh, and then there is this one from The Christian Century, “Africentric Church: A Visit to Chicago’s Trinity UCC.” In this particular article, Gibbs would have found this:

[snip] James Cone, the pioneer of black liberation theology, is a much-admired figure at Trinity. Cone told me that when he’s asked where his theology is institutionally embodied, he always mentions Trinity. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Seriously, dude – it wasn’t that long ago, and we are not that stupid or gullible.

I cannot help but wonder how my former professor, James Cone, feels about this new disavowal from Obama’s camp. Or my former TA, Dwight Hopkins, another theology professor, and fellow congregant at TUCC. Though after the way Obama treated his former “uncle,” Jeremiah Wright, maybe they aren’t all that surprised. Or they shouldn’t be. I know I am not. How about you?

That is just apples and oranges – yes, there is a mosque four blocks away from Ground Zero, but it has been there for DECADES. Its site was not chosen specifically because it was close to an area targeted by Islamic extremists. The Masjid Manhattan was not chosen precisely because [art of the landing gear of a jet that had been turned into a WMD fell into it, as was the case for the Park 51 mosque. There is a world of difference between the two. It is disconcerting that people like Alex DiBranco, who wrote the article linked above, or since you've probably not heard of him, Mara Liasson of NPR, who made that argument Monday, 8/30, on Fox News All Stars:

[snip] Right, the critics of the project do have a responsibility to say where in Manhattan it would be OK, because there is a mosque four blocks from ground zero, currently. Would they like that one moved?

If it’s just the location, and it’s not the fact that a mosque is being built, where would it be OK? On Staten Island, the upper west side? Where would it be OK? Because there have been other anti-mosque demonstrations elsewhere around the country that are very far from ground zero.

So I think it’s important for the people against this to be extremely clear about exactly what they’re against.[snip]

Well, gosh, Ms. Liasson, I think people have been EXTREMELY clear about why they do not want this mosque built in that location by this developer and why.

Good grief. There is a serious lack of logic operating there (or rather, not operating). How can these people be so obtuse? Is it intentional, or do they really not see there is a huge difference between the two?

The same goes for Obama and his ridiculous, uh, I mean, “brilliant” statement to the effect if Jews wanted to build a synagogue there, or Christians a church, a Hindu temples, etc., that should be A-Okay. No problem with that at all. Well, for once I agree with him, but not because of the conflation and distortion he is utilizing, but because, yes, those groups should be able to build near Ground Zero if they wish (or perhaps an interfaith center to house them all). Why? Because THEY DID NOT MURDER THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS as a direct result of their faith (distortion that it may be). That’s why.

Jews, Christians, Hindis, Buddhists, Wiccans, any other group you can think of, did not pick a location close to where a group affiliated with their religion murdered thousands of people BECAUSE it was close to that site.

And it wasn’t their first attack on that site, either, though too many people seem quick to forget that. This was the second time in less than ten years that Muslims attacked the World Trade Towers. Again, they weren’t terrorists who happened to be Muslims, but because of their particular belief system, were terrorists because they were Muslims.

Just yesterday, we had two more Muslims from Detroitpicked up in Amsterdam who were conducting a dry run to see if they could get materials on board a US flight. The scary thing is, they were able to do so. There was the “Christmas Day” bomber. The NYC bomber. There are Muslim extremists planning – actively planning – to do us harm.

Of course, that does not mean all Muslims are bad, or out to get our country. We understand that, too. But to continue to deny that there ARE terrorists out there who want to harm the US because of their Muslim faith is the worst kind of “tolerance.” That isn’t “tolerance,” that is stupidity.

So, yes, there are over 100 mosques in New York City. We know this. That’s fine. Whatever. And yes, there is one four blocks away that was built decades ago. So? All these folks making that point, or what they think is a point, just need to stop trying to act like its the same thing. It is not.

As I have said before, it is about decency and compassion for those who lost loved ones at Ground Zero, and for the whole country, which may not ever fully heal from that attack on our soil. Conflating this one mosque being built (by a developer with a rap sheet a mile long, I might add) near Ground Zero in a building that had part of the jet land in it has absolutely NOTHING to do with where other mosques are, especially ones that have been there for decades. Nor does it have anything to do with other religious faiths being able to build near Ground Zero.

These are red herrings, obfuscations, the sole purpose of which is to deny the reality of what happened at Ground Zero through the appearance of “tolerance.” Maybe Mara Liasson can forget it. Maybe President Obama can forget it. But the majority of Americans cannot, have not, and will not.

George W. Bush. No, really – I’m serious. They want George W. Bush to weigh in on the building of this particular mosque near Ground Zero. Would I lie to you? No. And wait until you see who a couple of the writers are requesting Bush’s input in this Byron York article in the Washington Examiner, “Mosque supporters beg George W. Bush to come to Obama’s rescue“:

It’s time for W. to weigh in,” writes the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that “you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.” Dowd finds it “odd” that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, “W. needs to get his bullhorn back out” — a reference to Bush’s famous “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. “I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue,” Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. “He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views.”

And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. “Words I never thought I’d write: I pine for George W. Bush,” Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. “Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion.” Beinart longs for the days when Bush “used to say that the ‘war on terror’ was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me…”

Come on, isn’t that hilarious? These are the same people who vilified Bush routinely, routinely!!! And now, now that the man they supported after consuming massive amounts of Kool Aide, and smoking tons of Hopium, and shoved down our throats, refusing to do any vetting whatsoever, has made such a mess of this issue, they want BUSH to weigh in? This is one of the funniest things I have heard in a while. Maureen Dowd?? Eugene ROBINSON?? Oh, wow.

Well, someone else who has weighed in is Debra Burlingame, from the 9/11 Families. Did she ever have something to say, especially about Madam Speaker Pelosi’s remarks about funding:

Well, Ms. Burlingame certainly didn’t mince words. Agree with her or not, there is no misunderstanding from where she is coming on this issue.

There is one group from whom we have not heard on this whole mosque business. And that would be moderate Muslims. What is their take on Imam Rauf’s building the mosque near Ground Zero? They, too, are quite clear: don’t build it. That is the upshot of this Daily Caller article by Caroline May, “Moderate Muslims Oppose Location of Cordoba Mosque – On Religious Grounds.” This article is well worth the read, but a few salient quotes:

[snip] Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, told TheDC that moderate Muslims have been silent on the matter, despite possible disagreements, due to religious concerns. According to Fatah, however, the need to avoid causing another person pain should trump such conflicts.

“There is a widespread belief among Muslim teaching that anyone who opposes the construction of a mosque, which is the house of God, is committing a sin,” he said. “So a lot of people who want to voice their opinion do not want to become a part of the controversy. But especially during the month of Ramadan it is important that our actions not cause pain to anyone. Any action by a Muslim that causes any pain to anyone else should be halted!” [snip]

That explains a lot – the widespread belief, that is. It helps to know why moderate Muslims have been quiet throughout this discussion. There is more:

Fatah believes the mosque plans are moving forward because they have the support of the American government. “I think they have an official green light either from the State Department or the White House telling them to, ‘Go ahead, you have our full backing,’ and they want to use this Islamic center as a place for diplomacy to the Middle East to demonstrate that the United States is a place where Muslims thrive. But that has backfired because this could have been done in many other ways.”

Jasser said that the building of this mosque is ‘fitna,’ a religious term meaning mischief-making, which is severely frowned upon in Islam. “‘Fitna’ is anything that causes chaos in society,” he said. “This mosque is causing chaos, it is causing ‘fitna’ and that is not the Islamic thing to do … This is ‘fitna’ and ‘fitna’ is wrong.”

Fatah agreed saying that ‘fitna’ is an ethical and moral issue that ought not be taken lightly. “If a step taken by an individual causes disharmony then it is ‘fitna.’ [The mosque] has caused so much pain. There are many mosques already in New York, nobody has ever opposed a mosque, if there is opposition to a mosque on grounds of hatred I would be the first to confront it. But over here it is a matter of sensitivity and there is no residential community even near the community center.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

“Mischief-making.” Yes, that seems to be a good term for what Imam Rauk is doing, along with Obama, I might add. And yes, the State Department sending Imam Rauf on a tour of the Middle East on our dime, at a cost of $16,000, certainly appears to condone the building the mosque by essentially endorsing Rauf.

But Fatah said it all. This is not about hatred. It is about sensitivity (about which I wrote recently, too). This decision is causing pain, to a number of people. Two thirds of New Yorkers oppose building the mosque there. Two thirds of Americans oppose building the mosque within two blocks of Ground Zero. Not because they/we/I oppose building mosques in general, but because we oppose it being built THERE, overlooking where Ground Zero stands, a hallowed ground to New Yorkers, to our nation.

George W. Bush can say something or not, doesn’t really matter to me. As far as I am concerned, the opposition is about sensitivity to those who lost loved ones, and to a nation that suffered a devastating attack there. It is not a matter of “freedom of religion,” or “freedom to practice religion.” It is about ceasing the mischief making, an “ethical and moral issue” of some weight.

I think that pretty much says it all, don’t you?

But Larry is not the only one with something to say about Obama’s proclamation. Here are just a few more statements being made this morning, compiled by AOL News:

[snip] Fitting Statement, But…
President Obama’s remarks about the community center and mosque planned for the neighborhood of Ground Zero were a fitting restatement of fundamental American fealty to freedom of religion….That said, it must also be recognized — and unfortunately Obama did not do so fully — that the hallowed ground of 9/11 stirs the deepest of emotions. That’s why, even as most of those polled saw the right to build, 64% still said the location was simply wrong for a mosque and Islamic-related facility…Those are legitimate sentiments, born not of bigotry but of reverence. They must be respected. — Editorial, New York Daily News

Not Hedging a Bit
The foes of the Islamic center have been trying to drag Obama into this debate, and some have urged Obama to avoid wading into it. But now he has, and he isn’t hedging a bit: He’s saying that opposing the group’s right to build the Islamic center is, in essence, un-American. I look forward to the response from the project’s opponents. – Greg Sargent, The Washington Post

Missing the Point
Like so much of the other stuff Obama says, this is an exercise in missing the point. The issue is not, legally, whether the Muslims can construct a mosque at Ground Zero — that is, whether state action should prevent them from doing so as long as they operate in “accordance with local laws and ordinances.” Of course not. That would be unconstitutional. But there’s a lot of stuff that’s legal that still isn’t right. And so, when it comes to the mosque, the real question is whether it should be built, and at only this one particular site — whether constructing it at Ground Zero is decent, and kind, and respectful of Americans’ sensitivities. – Carol Platt Liebau, Town Hall [snip]

I agree with Ms. Liebau – Obama is missing the point, as is Greg Sargent. This is not about freedom of religion – of course Muslims are free to practice their religion in the United States, as we all are (including the freedom not to practice religion). This is a canard, the purpose of which is a deliberate attempt to distort the real issue.

So, let’s be clear here. This mosque is not just any mosque, but one headed up by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. A man who is currently on tour of the Middle East courtesy of our State Department, and our dime. A man who refuses to condemn Hamas. A man who says we are partly to blame for 9/11. A man State Department spokesweasel P.J. Crowley says won’t be talking about religion, and won’t be fund-raising when he goes to countries like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to pay for the mosque he wants to build near Ground Zero.

But here’s the thing – Rauf has been offered other property on which to build his mosque by Gov. Patterson. He declined. He WANTS it to be in the shadow of Ground Zero. It begs the question: why?

This isn’t about freedom of religion. It is about reverence, about sensitivity to one of the most horrible acts of war on our shores, committed by Muslim extremists. That is not a right wing talking point, that is reality, a fact. The Twin Towers were brought down by Muslim extremists who sought to do us harm. And they did.

Perhaps President Obama, and all of the liberals who are working so hard to be “politically correct” and paint those who desire to not have this mosque so close to Ground Zero as a bunch of intolerant, insensitive yahoos should take a look at the video below, and remember. Remember what happened that day, not just to New Yorkers, but at the Pentagon, in a field in Pennsylvania, to all Americans, and to the world. This isn’t about freedom of religion. It is about this:

No, this is about reverence. It is about honoring the memories of all who were lost in this devastating attack at the hands of Muslim extremists. It is about sensitivity to those families and friends who lost loved ones, and to all Americans who lost a sense of safety that day. It is about all of us, whose lives were changed forever the day those planes were flown into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania.

How dare anyone try and make this out to be anything other than that. It is not about freedom of religion, or the right of one group to practice that religion. It is about a modicum of grace. A modicum of respect. We would no more accept a KKK headquarters in Selma, or a Japanese WWII memorial at Pearl Harbor, or a German Cultural museum on the beaches of Normandy. No, we wouldn’t, and we shouldn’t accept this as a “freedom of religion” issue. It isn’t.

Imam Fauk was offered another piece of real estate in the city of New York, which already has more than 100 mosques. He declined. He is determined to have it near Ground Zero.

And again I ask, why?

For all you believers, Afghanistan has a proposition for you. The Taliban leaders had a grand Jirga and suggested that each riteous Christian should be offered a sum of money, a couple of grand, to change their hearts.

Now, we know not all good Christians are sell outs…but look when you take gas prices, utility bills, unemployment, health, inflation, and the kids’ education into account, is it that hard to imagine that more than a few people would consider the Taliban’s offer? Good Christians might secretly visit Church even after agreeing to the deal. But what’s going to happen once the money is gone? Good Christians will return to their faith, or will scheme to keep the money coming their way.

Does this sound ridiculous enough?

Well, that’s what Afghanistan’s puppet President Hamid Karzai proposed at the London Conference. The United States backed the idea, and has decided to raise one billion dollars to buy off Taliban or Taliban sympathizers. The specific amount of money each member of the Taliban would receive has not yet been worked out, but given the high corruption level in Afghanistan, my shot in the dark is that they won’t get enough money to keep their loyalties to one party.

Over the next 5 years, as proposed by the Afghan government, this money would be used to establish a trust to finance the reintegration program that would persuade the militants to lay down their weapons.

The U.N. Security Counsel also removed the names of five Taliban leaders from the “black list” of 144 dangerous terrorists figuring in the sanctions regime under Resolution 1267 dating back to the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. This shows that we are back to square one. As the UN envoy to Afghanistan put it, “If you want results, then you have to talk to the relevant person in authority.”

Paying the bribe to purchase a change of heart is a bogus idea. But some argue that Taliban supporters have failed to realize why international forces are in their country. Interestingly, this idea is supported by the argument that it can’t be worse than the previous efforts.

Well, then the previous efforts were wrong, as this one. Bottom line is, you can not correct a historical blunder with such idiotic tactics. This is what the West never understood and still refuses to.

–
Cross Post from: The Pakistan Update

I admit, this one really shocked me, even more than Maine. What else surprised me was that it wasn’t even that close a vote:

The State Senate defeated a bill on Wednesday that would legalize same-sex marriage, after an emotional debate that touched on civil rights, family and history. The vote means that the bill, pushed by Gov. David A. Paterson, is effectively dead for the year and dashes the optimism of gay rights advocates, who have had setbacks recently in several key states.

The bill was defeated by a decisive margin of 38 to 24. The Democrats, who have a bare, one-seat majority, did not have enough votes to pass the bill without some Republican support, but not a single Republican senator voted for the measure. Still, several key Democrats who were considered swing votes also opposed the bill.

Mr. Paterson made an unusual trip to the Senate floor minutes after the last vote was cast, saying, “These victories come and so do the losses, but you keep on trying.”

True, there are wins and losses, and yes, we just have to keep on trying. But there are some agencies against which we are fighting that will be difficult to overcome:

The state’s Roman Catholic bishops, who had actively lobbied against the bill, said they were pleased by the vote.

“While the Catholic Church rejects unjust discrimination against homosexual men and women, there is no question that marriage by its nature is the union of one man and one woman,” Richard E. Barnes, the executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said in a statement. “Advocates for same-sex marriage have attempted to portray their cause as inevitable. However, it has become clear that Americans continue to understand marriage the way it has always been understood, and New York is not different in that regard. This is a victory for the basic building block of our society.”

Not quite sure how I can read that as anything other than being unjust, but that’s just me Still, this was not the overriding factor:

In the end, it was not an issue that broke down along racial lines, or even religious and agnostic divisions. In fact, nine of the Senate’s 11 black members voted in support of same-sex marriage.

“When I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out,” said Senator Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat who compared the law preventing same-sex marriage with laws that kept blacks and whites from marrying. “I believe there are certain moments here where we can benchmark our lives by the votes we took.”

The debate was as personal as any to take place in the Senate chamber in years. Senators spoke of their experiences as Jews and Baptists, as blacks and women. They spoke of spending long nights contemplating their votes and the deceased gay friends and relatives who inspired their decision.

Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson, a Democrat who represents parts of the Bronx and Westchester County, spoke publicly for the first time about her gay brother, who was shunned by her family and moved to France.

“He had disappeared from our lives. And my father worried, but he could not ask him to come home,” she said, fighting back tears. Ms. Hassell-Thompson said she searched for her brother and eventually found him and asked him to come home. But he told her he was hesitant because he felt his family did not want to see him. “I said, ‘But your sister does.’ ”

Hold on, I need a moment…

Okay. Unfortunately, not everyone felt similarly:

State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx made an impassioned argument against same-sex marriage, describing his continued opposition as reflecting the broad consensus that marriage should be limited to a union between a man and woman. “Not only the evangelicals, not only the Jews, not only the Muslims, not only the Catholics, but also the people oppose it,” he said.

Senate Republicans had said before the vote that they believed their members could provide a few votes for the bill.

“There may be a few, that’s very possible,” said Senator Thomas W. Libous of Binghamton, the deputy Republican leader. “Everybody’s feeling is get it on the floor and let’s vote it up or down. It’s been talked about enough. Let’s get it done. I think it’s going to be very close.”

Ms. Krueger said before the debate began that she was optimistic the bill would pass, but added, “It depends on whether Republican votes are delivered.”

But, as it turned out, not close at all.

New York has now joined a growing club:

Had the legislation passed, New York would have become the sixth state where marriage between same-sex couples is legal or will soon be permitted. But now that it has failed, New York becomes the latest state where gay rights advocates have made considerable progress only to see their hopes dashed.

Last month Maine became the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a referendum. The Maine State Legislature had voted to legalize same-sex unions earlier this year, but opponents of gay rights gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

Last year, California voters repealed same-sex marriage after the State Supreme Court said that gay couples had the right to marry.

Unlike in Maine, however, New York does not have a referendum process that allows voters to overturn an act of the Legislature.

The State Assembly had already approved the legislation, and Gov. David A. Paterson had said he would immediately sign the bill if it made it to his desk.

Shortly after midnight on Wednesday, the Assembly voted 88 to 51 to allow same-sex marriage. Though the Assembly has already passed the bill twice, a quirk in New York’s legislative code required the Assembly to pass the bill again before the governor can sign it.

As the vote approached advocates on both sides of the debate were pushing ahead with a last-minute effort to shore up support.

“We’re working it as hard as we can,” said Senator Eric T. Schneiderman, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side and who supports same-sex marriage. “It feels very good right now. It feels like its going to happen. But this is an issue where some people don’t want to declare themselves until the last minute. And I think, believe it or not, I think there are one or two people who are really still torn.”

Demonstrators on both sides of the issue were relatively scarce in the Capitol on Wednesday. A small group of Orthodox Jews gathered outside the Senate chamber, one of them holding a sign that read “Gay Union/A Rebellion Against the Almighty.”

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Monsey, N.Y., said he traveled to Albany to remind the Senate “that the world belongs to the Almighty, and they have to reckon with his rules and his law.”

As John L. Sampson, the Senate Democratic leader, walked into his office on Wednesday morning, he flashed a thumbs-up to same-sex marriage supporters standing a few feet from the protesters. But Mr. Sampson acknowledged he did not know how the vote would turn out.

“I’ve got my work cut out for me,” he said.

So do a lot of us, apparently.

And it doesn’t stop there: A Surprisingly Dark Day For Gay Rights In New Jersey. Just next door to New York, the LGB community is engaged in a battle that they may not have expected:

Support for gay marriage in Trenton is draining away like water from a tub as nervous legislators scurry towards safer political ground.

“I can’t say I’m confident now,” says Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), a lead sponsor. “I think we still have a pretty good chance. But people are getting nervous and weak-kneed.”

Bad as that sounds, know that Weinberg is spinning this as best she can. Several other senators, supporters and opponents, say the movement is all but dead.

“They’ve lost the momentum,” says Sen. Kip Bateman, a Somerset Republican who considered supporting the measure until last week. “I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

So mark this as a black day for the cause of gay rights in New Jersey. Marriage equality was supposed to be the big prize, the final measure of respect, a sign that gay families were indeed equal under the law.

Instead, gay couples and their children are getting another ugly reminder that their families are regarded as second-class, as something less than the families next door.

Gay activists are bitter about what they see as betrayal. Democrats, especially Gov. Jon Corzine, told them over and over to wait for this moment.

And now they are getting tepid support, or none at all.

“Many of us in the progressive movement just want to throw up,” says Steve Goldstein of Garden State Equality, the state’s leading gay rights group. “Democrats put out one hand out to ask for money, and with the other they stab you in the back.” (Emphasis mine.)

This is a refrain that is becoming more and more common from the LBG community. Many within the community are waking up to the realization, one shared by many women, that the DNC could care less about them, simply paying lip service and nothing more. Obama picking a homophobic, anti-choice chair for the DNC pretty much says it all.

Back to Trenton:

So what changed in the last month? Why did supporters get so nervous?

For one, Corzine’s big loss has Democrats rattled. Republican Chris Christie united his party, and did well in Democratic strongholds like Middlesex County. He didn’t emphasize the gay marriage issue, but when asked, he promised a veto.

Democrats were rattled again when voters in Maine rejected gay marriage in a referendum, the 31st state to do so.

Perhaps most important, the Roman Catholic Church in New Jersey threw its muscle into the fight. Bishops and priests spoke against it from the pulpit, and more than 150,000 parishioners signed petitions in opposition.

Several legislators said they were impressed by that show of strength, given that Catholics make up more than 40 percent of the state’s population.

“Any time you see that kind of passion, you have to pay attention,” said Sen. Jennifer Beck, a Republican from Monmouth County. “You’re elected to be the voice of the people who voted for you.”

Finally, there were discouraging noises from Sen. Steve Sweeney, a South Jersey Democrat who will take over as Senate president in January, replacing Sen. Richard Codey (D-Essex).

Sweeney suggested that the legislature should leave this issue aside for now, and focus instead on the economic crisis. It was pure political nonsense, because the legislature is not even considering major economic bills.

But the signal was sent.

Indeed, and it is one that seems to be appearing all too often these days. And the result is all too predictable:

So the senators began to peel off. Codey found himself counting heads to reach 21, the magic number to win passage. He couldn’t get it from Democrats, so he reached out to Republicans.

“Codey called me,” Bateman says. “I’m told they (Democrats) have 14 or 15 votes on this. I told him they have one or two (Republicans) at most.”

At tense moments like this, most politicians behave like herd animals. They are careful not to stray far from the pack. And if one of them gets rattled, everyone runs.

What we have on our hands today in Trenton is a bunch of scared herd animals. And it’s not a pretty thing to watch.

Only 2 percent of voters said this is the most important issue to them. And these skittish Democrats are almost all in gerrymandered districts that were drawn to ensure they win by large margins.

Ask senators privately what would happen if they all voted their consciences, and you get the same answer over and over: It would pass with votes to spare.

But our leaders, these puny men and women, are too scared to stand up and be counted.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could drum up a voter backlash against that?

Oh, I think a backlash is coming on a bigger scale, but for now, the message is all too clear: Members of the LGB community are not equal.

And then there is someone who SHOULD have said no, and that would be noted Homophobe, Pastor Rick Warren, he of Obama’s Inauguration fame. Pastor Warren is getting notice for what he would NOT do:

Rick Warren Refuses To Condemn Proposed Ugandan Law Executing Gay People

That would be President Obama’s friend Rick Warren. Rick Warren who says he even ate dinner with a gay couple once. Rick Warren who says he doesn’t hate gay people. Funny, then, that Rick Warren refused to condemn Uganda’s proposed legislation to executive people for being gay and HIV positive. From Newsweek via Box Turtle:

But Warren won’t go so far as to condemn the legislation itself. A request for a broader reaction to the proposed Ugandan anti-homosexual laws generated this response: “The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.” On Meet the Press this morning, he reiterated this neutral stance in a different context: “As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides.” Warren did say he believed that abortion was “a holocaust.” He knows as well as anyone that in a case of great wrong, taking sides is an important thing to do.

Oh, I’d go one further. Rick Warren has taken sides before. He did it with Prop 8. On the side of the haters. But now he won’t do it when they’re talking about executing gay people? Why, because it’s a foreign country and Rick doesn’t get involved in foreign politics, only our own? Yes, I remember well when Jesus told us all to be good Christians only in our own backyard.

I don’t remember that passage and I have read the Christian Scriptures a number of times. Oh, wait – that’s because it isn’t in there. And, I don’t remember Obama speaking out about that practice, either. Birds of a feather he and Warren.

It’s hard to even know what to say at this point. It really is. It is just hard to live in a country in which so many people are willing to discriminate against you. I totally understand why the brother of the NY State senator moved to France. I, too, hope to end up living somewhere in which people see me as fully human, and where my almost 14 yr relationship is deemed as worthy under the law as other of my fellow citizens. A place in which I am not just treated as equal, but seen as equal. Heaven knows, that would be some change I could believe in…

Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Sure never saw THAT one coming. I’ll give you a moment to recover from the shock.

Okay. So, yeah – check out what brought this about for the Mormon Church:

It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.

On Tuesday night, after a series of clandestine meetings between local gay-rights backers and Mormons in Salt Lake City, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would support proposed city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

The ordinances passed and history was made: It marked the first time the Salt Lake City-based church had supported gay-rights legislation.

The Mormon church — which continues to suffer a backlash over its support last year of Proposition 8, the measure banning gay marriage in California — emphasized that its latest position in no way contradicts its teachings on homosexuality.

But the action is one of the strongest signs yet that even conservative religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage might be willing to support legal protections for gays that fall short of that.

Well, that is good news. Personally, I felt like the Mormon Church was being used as a bit of a scapegoat in CA. Sure, they supported Prop 8, but apparently, so did the majority of Californians. It’s a hard truth to swallow, but the evidence is indisputable. The majority voted for Proposition 8. Are you telling me that that many Californians could be swayed to violate their internal beliefs by the Mormons? Really? Exactly.

More about the Church:

At the same time, the church’s position has angered some of its conservative allies on social issues, prompted questions about whether public relations is its real motivation, and put the church on the spot over how far it will go on similar legislation on the state and federal level.

“This is a very good public relations response that has the additional benefit of actually representing the way the current church leadership thinks,” said Armand Mauss, a retired professor at Washington State University and scholar of Mormonism.

Some of the church’s conservative allies in the gay marriage battles, however, call it a setback. The two new ordinances make it illegal to fire or evict someone for being gay, bisexual or transgender.

Such legislation robs employers and landlords of their rights and gives legal ammunition to judges sympathetic to gay marriage, said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the conservative Family Research Council.

“It’s disappointing and I’m fearful that it reflects in part a reaction to the attacks they came under after Proposition 8 — an effort to bend over backwards to exhibit tolerance toward homosexuals in some way,” Sprigg said.

Michael Otterson, director of public affairs for the Mormon church, said Wednesday that church leaders were able to support the ordinance because it doesn’t carve out special rights for gays.

Supporting “basic civil values,” Otterson said, does not compromise the church’s religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex marriage poses a threat to traditional marriage.

“There are going to be gay advocates who don’t think we’ve gone nearly far enough, and people very conservative who think we’ve gone too far,” Otterson said. “The vast majority of people are between those polar extremes and we think that’s going to resonate with people on the basis of fair-mindedness.”

The position is not a reversal, Otterson said. In August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, employment, housing or probate as long as they “do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”

I have to admit – given the attacks on the Mormon Church, I am a tad surprised to see this is their position. Honestly, that’s more progressive than many people would believe. More than I would have believed had I not read it for myself. The way in which the Mormons have been demonized by LGBT rights activists and supporters, one would have thought the Mormons were the Devil Incarnate. Evidently not:

Church officials say the city ordinances were not discussed in the recent meetings between church staff and gay rights leaders, and that it was the mayor who put the proposals on the table.

Harry Knox, director of the religion and faith program at the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign, said the Mormon church’s stand on the Salt Lake City ordinances could help alter the debate over gay rights.

“The church deserves credit, but that credit really comes because people have been pushing for it,” Knox said. “It’s not something thing they arrived at on their own and out of the goodness of their hearts.”

The church’s action is the latest sign of a softening among some conservative Christians toward offering some legal protections to gays.

Activists are trying to garner support from evangelicals for a federal employment anti-discrimination law that would cover gays. However, religious reaction was largely negative to a federal hate crimes act protecting homosexuals that President Barack Obama recently signed into law. Several conservative Christian groups argued that preaching against homosexuality could be deemed a hate crime under the legislation.

The Mormon church has not taken a stance on either piece of federal legislation.

Otterson, the church spokesman, said that in the case of the Salt Lake City ordinances, Mormon leaders weighed in because they were responding to a request for feedback on specific legislation.

Asked whether the church would take a stand on similar state or federal legislation, Otterson said: “The church leadership is not inclined to offer free advice where it’s not being requested.”

Well, that’s an interesting response. But the rest of it is a bit eye-opening for a church that has been completely demonized by liberals. Perhaps, at some point, they might actually have to start looking at just who it was who voted for Prop 8. I guarantee you, they weren’t all Mormons…

And speaking of religious types, it seems Donnie McClurkin, Obama’s big campaign buddy, has been out and about spewing hate against the GLBT community. Oh, yes. No doubt, Jesus told him to call us “vampires,” and “perversions.” Yep:

The last time we heard from Donnie McClurkin, he was campaigning with Barack Obama. At the Obama campaign event, you may recall, McClurkin harangued gays for over thirty minutes and proclaimed:

“God delivered me from homosexuality.”

Well, McClurkin is back. This weekend, he re-emerged spewing homophobic hate in Memphis. Rod 2.0 reports:

Donnie McClurkin ramps up the ridiculous to speak in tongues and call gays “vampires”. The infamously “ex-gay” — or should we say merely “re-closeted” — Grammy Award winning gospel singer and evangelist rants against gays, gay youth and recently out gospel singer Tonex at the Church of God in Christ’s Holy Convocation Youth Service. This happened last Saturday at the COGIC convention in Memphis.

Oh, it doesn’t stop there: I

n the first of three disgusting YouTube videos, McClurkin begins his rant against Tonex, the gospel star and minister who recently confirmed his long-rumored sexuality. McClurkin says Tonex is a “perversion” and must pray away the gay: “God did not call young people to such peversion. Society has failed him, his church has failed him … I would be homosexual to this day if Jesus hadn’t delivered.”

McClurkin also rails against against openly gay youth as “broken and feminine”: “I see feminine men, feminine boys, everywhere I go … No, don’t applaud ‘cuz it ain’t funny. It’s because we failed. I see them everywhere.”

Rod has posted the three videos of McClurkin’s rant. Check them out. It’s ugly.

Again, it begs the question: why did people in the GLBT community ever think Obama stood with them considering the people with whom he surrounded himself?

I might add, if you really want to see where the community is these days, check out some of comments at posts that have anything to do with the DNC at Gay Americablog – I know Aravosis was an Obama water carrier. He sems to have realized the error of his ways. TOo late, I know, but nothing like being scorned, right? The anger in the comments is palpable by people in the GLBT community at Obama and the DNC. Hence the latest, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Give” campaign being generated against the DNC. Oh, yeah. They are shutting down their wallets. About damn time, too, if you ask me.

That is to say, Upside Down World continues – the Mormon Church is supporting a number of GLBT rights, Obama’s good buddy is ranting against GLBT people, and the is dragging its feet. Maybe it’s because of its new leadership – Gov. Tim Kaine, homophobe. Okey dokey.

I think I need to sit down now.

You’re not going to believe this:

Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering the pool in normal swimming attire.

Instead they are told that they must comply with the “modest” code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees.

Huh? What kind of coverings? Like this?

(Photo Credit)

That’s from 1864. Yes, that’s right – 145 years ago. That’s what all the women were wearing then.

This is about what they are wearing in 2009:

(Photo credit)

Uh yeah. Pretty much. Even if they are NOT Muslims, women are supposed to wear this so as not to offend. I’m sorry, how is that again? They are going to allow one religion, not even the NATIONAL religion, mind you, to dominate what women and men (though the latter is FAR less restrictive) can and cannot wear while swimming?? In a PUBLIC pool? Well, that’s simply stunning, isn’t it?

Not everyone is onboard with the whole “burkini” thing, though, as you might have guessed:

The phenomenon runs counter to developments in France, where last week a woman was evicted from a public pool for wearing a burkini – the headscarf, tunic and trouser outfit which allows Muslim women to preserve their modesty in the water.

The 35-year-old, named only as Carole, is threatening legal action after she was told by pool officials in Emerainville, east of Paris, that she could not wear the outfit on hygiene grounds.

Not that I think she should have been tossed out of the pool or anything, but she was not trying to force everyone ELSE to wear one, either:

But across the UK municipal pools are holding swimming sessions specifically aimed at Muslims, in some case imposing strict dress codes.

Croydon council in south London runs separate one-and-a half-hour swimming sessions for Muslim men and women every Saturday and Sunday at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.

Swimmers were told last week on the centre’s website that “during special Muslim sessions male costumes must cover the body from the navel to the knee and females must be covered from the neck to the ankles and wrists”.

There are similar rules at Scunthorpe Leisure Centre, in North Lincolnshire, where “users must follow the required dress code for this session (T-shirts and shorts/leggings that cover below the knee)”.

In Glasgow, a men-only swimming session is organised by a local mosque group at North Woodside Leisure Centre, at which swimmers must be covered from navel to knee.

At a women-only class organised by a Muslim teacher at Blackbird Leys Swimming Pool, Oxford, to encourage Muslim women to learn to swim, most participants wear “modest” outfits although normal costumes are permitted.

Hmmm. Well, that’s something at least – that regular dress is allowed at this one place. Though still, to impose their standard of “modest dress” on others is still, well, an imposition, is it not?

Here’s the problem:

The dress codes have provoked an angry reaction among critics who say they encourage division and resentment between Muslims and non-Muslims, putting strain on social cohesion.

Ian Cawsey, the Labour MP for the North Lincolnshire constituency of Brigg and Goole, said: “Of course swimming pools have basic codes of dress but it should not go beyond that.

“I don’t think that in a local authority pool I should have to wear a particular type of clothes for the benefit of someone else. That’s not integration or cohesion.”

Good point, isn’t it? But how about a leader who does have a large Muslim populaiton:

Labour MP Anne Cryer, whose Keighley, West Yorkshire constituency has a large number of Muslims, said: “Unfortunately this kind of thing has a negative impact on community relations.

“It’s seen as yet another demand for special treatment. I can’t see why special clothing is needed for what is a single-sex session.”

Muslim swimming sessions are also held at a number of state schools around the country. At Loxford School in Ilford, east London, a local Muslim group organises weekly sessions for Muslim men, with the warning that “it is compulsory for the body to be covered between the navel and the knees.

“Anyone not adhering to the dress code or rules within the pool will not be allowed to swim”.

The practice of holding special Muslim swimming sessions has led to non-Muslims being turned away.

Well, that’s a bit of a problem, isn’t it, whent it is a public pool? I can see where people might get testy over not being allowed in if the don’t adhere to the strict dress code of a religion not their own:

David Toube, 39 and his five year old son Harry were last year refused entry to Clissold Leisure Centre, in Hackney, east London, after being told the Sunday morning swimming session was for Muslim men only.

Council officials later said staff had made a mistake and both Mr Toube, a corporate lawyer, and his son should have been admitted.

After discovering the rules at Thornton Heath one Croydon resident, 34-year-old Alex Craig, said: “I think it is preposterous that a council should be encouraging this type of segregation over municipal facilities.

“Surely if Muslims want to swim then they should just turn up with their modest swimwear at the same time as everyone else.”

That does not sound too outrageous to me, but I freely admit, I am not in the camp that women should have to hide their entire bodies to be able to go swimming. That’s just me, though.

But it is just that kind of directive that brings this up:

Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, last night condemned the practice. He said: “This kind of thing is extremely divisive.

“Non-Muslims see these extremist demands as an example of Muslims wanting things to fit into their lifestyle, when there aren’t similar things organised for Hindus, Buddhists or Jews.

“It also puts moderate Muslims in an awkward position as it suggests, wrongly, that they are not devout enough, simply because they choose not to cover themselves in a shroud in a pool.”

A press officer at Croydon council, which introduced Muslim-only swimming in 2006, claimed that the wording on the website was a mistake and the dress code should be regarded as a suggestion rather than a requirement.

The website was late changed to remove the reference to the dress code.

However, an official at the leisure centre said the dress code remained compulsory.

Earlier, defending the segregation policy, a Croydon council spokesman said: “We appreciate that certain religious groups, such as Muslims, have strict rules on segregation for activities including sports, so in response to requests from the local community, we have been running these sessions at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.”

All in all, it sounds like quite a kerfluffle.

So, what do you think about this requirement? Should non-Muslim women be forced to wear “burkinis” while swimming in public pools? Let’s, um, flesh this out, shall we?

Wow. That is some mighty disturbing news (here is the LINK, if you’d rather read the article), is it not, both in terms of Muhammad and bin Laden? Well, Joe Biden said this president was going to be “tested by an international crisis within the first six months,” and so he is. It’s a shame he’s too busy trying to garner more accolades from other countries* rather than dealing with the very pressing issues here at home, but I think most of us expected that, didn’t we?

And so this isn’t abstract, this is Private Long, the soldier whose life was snuffed out bu this domestic terrorist:

As of this writing, Obama STILL has not made a statement about the soldiers ambushed in Little Rock. His silence speaks volumes. Especially as he IS the Commander in Chief. But he has nothing to say about two US Army soldiers gunned down in broad daylight in one of our cities? Nothing?? Holy smokes. Like I said – that speaks volumes to me, and what it says is NOT GOOD.

I cannot help but wonder how these two soldiers’ families feel that Obama has remained silent this attack? Especially Private Long’s family, as they deal with their tragic loss with no phone call from the White House? Not to mention what it says to their fellow soldiers…What kind of impact is this having on them? I can only imagine… I know it’s having a pretty big impact on a whole bunch of us who care about terrorists attacks on our own soil of those who have given their lives in service to this country…And I do know that many of us extend out hearts and prayers to all of them, the families, the other soldiers, and the people of Little Rock.

The difference between the treatment and coverage of the murders of Dr. Tiller and Pvt. Long is getting some notice, though:

I hope that Obama will wait no longer to extend his sympathies to Pvt. Long’s family. But I’m not holding my breath…And that’s just sad.

* By the way, Obama has claimed that our country has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. This is laughable on the face of it, but if you want to read the actual statistics, and a great post on this topic as well as Obama’s latest Magical Mystery Tour, I recommend LisaB’s, “When Is ‘Hussein’ Not A Smear? When Obama Say’s It’s Not, OF Course.” I won’t keep you in suspense – we are nowhere CLOSE to having the largest Muslim population in the world. We have about 2.3 million Muslims here, nowhere NEAR as many as a number of other countries.

In this age of religious extremism and terrorists abusing religious ideology, a pacifistic religion like Buddhism must resonate well with everyone. Last week, coinciding with the full moon (aka Buddha Poornima), India, Sri Lanka, and many Southeast Asian countries celebrated the birth anniversary of the founder of the religion, Siddhartha Gautama Buddha.

Buddhism and Jainism were two religions that caught the imagination of parts of India about 2500 years ago. While Buddhism did not explicitly preach non-violence, Jainism did and influenced other religions including Hinduism in many ways — for instance, vegetarianism seen in Hindu culture is said to be an adoption of Jain philosophy. Though Buddhism flourished for centuries in India, it gradually declined for lack of royal patronage. Jainism on the other hand has survived to this day with some noticeable following.

Siddhartha Gautama was born in 563 BC (approximate date) into a royal family and led a life of opulence until he was about 29 when he was exposed to the vagaries of the real world outside his palace. He then rejected his princely way of life and in his quest for the truth, attained nirvana or enlightenment at the age of thirty five from which point on he opened up to share his thoughts with the populace. He was then given the title Buddha to mean the enlightened one. Here is more on the fundamental teachings of Buddha.

Buddhism enjoyed the patronage of many kings at its peak in India, most notably that of Emperor Ashoka from the 3rd century BC. Legend has it that Ashoka after surveying the destruction of what was his last battle decided to adopt the new religion and the philosophy of non-violence and helped spread it far and wide (See here for a brief introduction). Another well known royal to promote Buddhism was Emperor Harshavardhana from the 7th century AD (more here). He is also known to have followed Mahayana Buddhism.

The best archeological evidence of Buddha and the religion he founded is preserved in the Ajanta caves in Northern India. There are about 29 caves carved into the cliff side of a magnificent gorge along the river Waghora. Paintings and sculptures in these caves beautifully depict the remarkable life story of Buddha as seen through the eyes of his followers over a number of centuries. These paintings and sculptures were created by Buddhist monks and other artisans over a period of 800 years starting as early as 2nd century BC. As Buddhism began to decline, the caves fell into natural degradation and remained hidden for centuries before they were discovered by a British Infantry captain stationed in Madras in 1819 who was on the hunt for a tiger in the vicinity. Religious or not, this remarkable human history of magnificent arts and creativity takes my breath away. The pictures above show a reclining Buddha on his deathbed surrounded by his followers as seen sculpted in Cave 26.

See this audio slide show from the NYTimes for an introduction to the caves. An accompanying article can be found here . The picture above the fold is from Cave 12 and the one below is in Cave 26 (more pictures here).

In addition to the Ajanta caves, we find Buddhist sculptures dating from 500 – 750 AD in the nearby Ellora caves. The activity continued in the Ellora caves between the 6th and 10th centuries with Buddhist caves being carved in the beginning of that period. All three religions Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism are represented in the Ellora caves which many note is a testament to the long and historic religious tolerance in India. Below is a picture from a Buddhist cave, one of 12 in Ellora. More here.

I will end this brief post about Buddhism and Buddha with this perhaps mundane note. For a while I had a rule in my house of not having any religious symbols in any part of the house. Then I came across this beautiful idol of Buddha in an artsy store near Big Sur, CA and I had to have it. My Buddha is wearing a red shawl and his hair is perfect and I fell in love with him. He sits in the center of my living room now to everyone’s attention. In stressful periods in my life, I had a ritual — coming down the stairs every morning, I would call out jauntily “Hello Mr. Buddha, how are you today?” The days I didn’t feel like doing that I knew I had to calibrate my emotions as I stepped out into the world. But today I say to my beloved friend, “Happy Birthday, Mr. Buddha!” I guess it is possible even for an atheist to intellectualize and then personalize a benevolent religious figure.

[h/t to Preeti Aroon and her photo essay at FP]

“Church Goers Like Torture More!”

“The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists.”

“Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful.”

That’s what the headlines blare, based on a recent survey conducted by the research arm of the prestigious Pew Charitable Trust.

To briskly summarize, frequent churchgoers and White evangelicals, followed fairly closely by White non-Hispanic Catholics approve of the use of torture more than do mainstream Protestants, those unaffiliated with any religion, and non-churchgoers.

If we stop right here and try to figure out why these results are as they are (setting aside for the moment Eastan McNeal’s recent excellent post about the survey’s methodology), the mind runs happily amok with what feels like obvious reasons. My friends and I came up with a few:

“Maybe the Bible-thumping “torture-lovers” see certainty and intolerance as two sides of the same coin. It’s easier to dehumanize people who exhibit the attributes that are the object of the intolerance.”

“God and Country are one in the same to religious fundamentalists, so ‘not country’ is heathen and the welfare of such people is not any concern.”

“If you’re a fundamentalist of any religion (or ism) there is pure unadulterated and unquestioned Truth. Once you’ve got that on your side you no longer need to question things as much.”

“Anything designated as evil does not need to be treated as a human.”

“The more conservative active church goers are more likely to have a good/evil, black/white, us/them, heaven/hell, saved/damned mindset. Compassion can then be eliminated towards those on the wrong side of the comparisons.”

But, I dared to look a little deeper at some other Pew survey work. It turns out that almost 50% of Americans believe that torture is acceptable “often” or “sometimes,” and that view has not changed significantly over the last couple of years. Republicans and Independents approve of torture more than do Democrats. Differences among men and women are small, as are differences regarding age and educational level. However a greater number of older people (33%) than younger people (23%) say torture should never be used. (Go seniors!)

But here is the bottom line. In the Pew survey, plenty of Democrats, mainstream Protestants, infrequent churchgoers, and religiously unaffiliated people DO believe torture is acceptable, and plenty of Evangelical Christians, non-Hispanic Catholics and frequent churchgoers are NOT in favor of torture. See the data for yourselves:

So, there is statistical significance and there is practical significance. In very practical terms, that means that if you meet up with an Evangelical Christian who attends church frequently or a Unitarian who attends services once a year, you might go with the probabilities and guess their view on torture correctly. And you will also be wrong often enough.

Your take?