So let me get this straight. If you're an Arab or other non-Jew, you have no problem being in Israel. But Palestinian officials are saying that if you're a Jew, you can't be in Palestine? That doesn't seem very fair. Read the original here.
PLO official: Palestinians, Israelis must be totally separatedCommenting on the subject of minority rights in the potential Palestinian state, PLO envoy to the U.S. says past experience shows the two people should be 'totally separated.'By Haaretz
The future independent Palestinian state will not include a Jewish minority, a top Palestinian official told USA Today on Wednesday, adding that it was in the best interest of both peoples to "be separated."
Maen Areikat, PLO Ambassador to the United States, made the comment just as the Palestinian Authority, led by President Mahmoud Abbas, was preparing to offer up Palestinian statehood to a vote in the United Nations General Assembly later this month."After the experience of the last 44 years, of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interest that the two peoples should be separated," Areikat added.
Answering a question about the legal status of a Jewish minority in the future state, Areikat apprently rejected the issue, saying: "I believe, I still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated," adding "I think we can contemplate these issues in the future."
Former U.S. National Security Council official Elliot Abrams responded to the Palestinian official's comment, saying to USA Today that the Palestinian demand was "a despicable form of anti-Semitism," adding: "No civilized country would act this way."
The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama had been openly opposing the planned Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations, arguing that a unilateral recognition of Palestinian independence would severely injure attempts at a comprehensive peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.
Speaking in an interview on Tuesday, Obama indicated that Washington did not feel "think that it would actually lead to the outcome that we want, which is a two-state solution."
Last week, the State Department said the U.S. would veto a resolution for Palestinian statehood in the council, but Obama had yet to comment directly on the matter.
"What we've said is that going to the UN is a distraction, does not solve the problem," he said. "This issue is only going to be resolved by Israelis and Palestinians agreeing to something."
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Monday, May 9, 2011
Public Broadcasting = Religion
Read the original here.
Its extraordinary decision elevates the BBC’s core principle to a place in the law equivalent to Christianity.
And the move leaves the way clear for long-serving employee Devan Maistry to sue the Corporation for wrongful dismissal.
South African-born Mr Maistry, who worked for the BBC Asian Network, says he suffered discrimination for six years until he was dismissed last year.
He has filed a claim for ‘religious or belief discrimination’, which allegedly took place against his philosophical view that ‘public service broadcasting has the higher purpose of promoting cultural interchange and social cohesion’.
Birmingham employment tribunal chairman Pam Hughes decided Mr Maistry has a worthy case, and gave him the right to a full hearing later this year.
Believing In BBC's Ethos Is Equivalent To A Faith, Job Tribunal Rules
By Steve Doughty[1] and Claire Ellicott[2]
Last updated at 12:40 AM on 9th May 2011
Rules to prevent religious discrimination can now also be used to protect a belief in the BBC’s ethos of public service broadcasting, a tribunal has ruled.
By Steve Doughty[1] and Claire Ellicott[2]
Last updated at 12:40 AM on 9th May 2011
Rules to prevent religious discrimination can now also be used to protect a belief in the BBC’s ethos of public service broadcasting, a tribunal has ruled.
Its extraordinary decision elevates the BBC’s core principle to a place in the law equivalent to Christianity.
And the move leaves the way clear for long-serving employee Devan Maistry to sue the Corporation for wrongful dismissal.
South African-born Mr Maistry, who worked for the BBC Asian Network, says he suffered discrimination for six years until he was dismissed last year.
He has filed a claim for ‘religious or belief discrimination’, which allegedly took place against his philosophical view that ‘public service broadcasting has the higher purpose of promoting cultural interchange and social cohesion’.
Birmingham employment tribunal chairman Pam Hughes decided Mr Maistry has a worthy case, and gave him the right to a full hearing later this year.
In doing so, the tribunal chairman established the principle that Mr Maistry’s love of public service broadcasting amounted to a belief which should have the same protection from discrimination that the law gives to followers of religious faiths.
Devan Maistry’s case is the latest in a string of decisions to rule that everyday opinions should have the same status as religious beliefs.
Two years ago, a tribunal found that company executive Tim Nicholson, a firm believer in climate change, was wrongly dismissed after objecting to his company’s use of flights and cars.
That case set a precedent and, this year, animal rights activist Joe Hashman successfully argued that he was wrongly sacked from his garden centre job after his activities were discovered. He said his beliefs should be protected by his employer.
It is not clear exactly how the broadcaster is accused of treating him unfairly. Mr Maistry would not comment when asked about the basis of his case.
A lawyer for the BBC said it had not even been explained to the Corporation how it had allegedly discriminated against the producer’s philosophical beliefs.
Laws defending workers from discrimination over faith were passed in 2003.
But in the past two years they have been extended by the courts to cover political and fringe interests including views on climate change and animal rights activism.
At the same time, a series of cases have dismissed the importance of Christian beliefs.
Most recently, a couple were told they were unfit to foster children because they could not in conscience tell a child that it was OK to be homosexual.
At the tribunal, the BBC said the idea that belief in public sector broadcasting was the same as a religion was ‘absurd’.
Its lawyer, Tariq Sadiq, said if Mr Maistry’s claim succeeded, then belief in the aims of any public sector organisation – or even a private sector firm’s mission statement – would count as philosophical beliefs.
Mr Sadiq said: ‘A belief that the aim of the NHS should first and foremost be to look after the health and welfare of its patients could, if the claimant were correct, amount to belief for the purposes of the 2003 regulations, but it would be absurd for that to be the case.’
But in her ruling, Miss Hughes said: ‘The claimant had a genuine and strongly held belief in what I will describe in short as the higher purpose of public service broadcasting. It is clearly of great personal significance to him.’
References
^ Steve Doughty (www.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Claire Ellicott (www.dailymail.co.uk)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384968/Believing-BBCs-ethos-equivalent-faith-job-tribunal-rules.html#ixzz1LtAFKhSs
Devan Maistry’s case is the latest in a string of decisions to rule that everyday opinions should have the same status as religious beliefs.
Two years ago, a tribunal found that company executive Tim Nicholson, a firm believer in climate change, was wrongly dismissed after objecting to his company’s use of flights and cars.
That case set a precedent and, this year, animal rights activist Joe Hashman successfully argued that he was wrongly sacked from his garden centre job after his activities were discovered. He said his beliefs should be protected by his employer.
It is not clear exactly how the broadcaster is accused of treating him unfairly. Mr Maistry would not comment when asked about the basis of his case.
A lawyer for the BBC said it had not even been explained to the Corporation how it had allegedly discriminated against the producer’s philosophical beliefs.
Laws defending workers from discrimination over faith were passed in 2003.
But in the past two years they have been extended by the courts to cover political and fringe interests including views on climate change and animal rights activism.
At the same time, a series of cases have dismissed the importance of Christian beliefs.
Most recently, a couple were told they were unfit to foster children because they could not in conscience tell a child that it was OK to be homosexual.
At the tribunal, the BBC said the idea that belief in public sector broadcasting was the same as a religion was ‘absurd’.
Its lawyer, Tariq Sadiq, said if Mr Maistry’s claim succeeded, then belief in the aims of any public sector organisation – or even a private sector firm’s mission statement – would count as philosophical beliefs.
Mr Sadiq said: ‘A belief that the aim of the NHS should first and foremost be to look after the health and welfare of its patients could, if the claimant were correct, amount to belief for the purposes of the 2003 regulations, but it would be absurd for that to be the case.’
But in her ruling, Miss Hughes said: ‘The claimant had a genuine and strongly held belief in what I will describe in short as the higher purpose of public service broadcasting. It is clearly of great personal significance to him.’
References
^ Steve Doughty (www.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Claire Ellicott (www.dailymail.co.uk)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384968/Believing-BBCs-ethos-equivalent-faith-job-tribunal-rules.html#ixzz1LtAFKhSs
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Who is evil?
The left had no problem deeming former President George Bush as evil. The boolean search for "George Bush is evil" yields 32,000+ hits. However, ABC can't find 1 person who can definitively say they think that Osama Bin Laden was evil. This is just ridiculous, PC, moral relativism run amok. I agree with Dennis Miller, "There is good in the world, there is evil in the world, and when good has a chance to hinder evil in any way, they must take it."
Read the original here.
ABC News Religion Correspondent: I Can't Judge Whether Bin Laden Was 'Evil'
According to the man ABC News[1] relies on for religious analysis, it's impossible to say whether Osama bin Laden was "evil." Father Edward Beck[2], the network's religion correspondent, appeared with Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday and offered moral equivalence on the subject of the terrorist's death.
When the O'Reilly Factor anchor pressed Beck on whether bin Laden truly represented malevolence, Beck replied, "That's not for me to judge. His actions were certainly were evil."
O'Reilly pressed Beck on this point, prompting the ABC News analyst to assert, "No, I think that's up to God to ultimately decide who's evil."
After asserting that the United States shouldn't celebrate bin Laden's death "like a Super Bowl," Beck compared American happiness over the terrorist's death to Middle East examples, such as celebrating on 9/11: "Yes, but when you watch these people celebrating, how does it make us any better than those in the Mid East who celebrate when America falls?"
(This prompted Bernie Goldberg, who appeared in an unrelated O'Reilly Factor segment, to interject about Beck. He derided, "The idea that... the Palestinians celebrated when they attacked the World Trade Center, we're just as bad if we celebrate when Osama bin Laden takes a bullet to the head. That's pathetic. That's pathetic. I mean, and that isn't Catholicism, that's liberalism.")
Beck, in his role as the religion correspondent, has appeared on Good Morning America and other ABC News programs. He has co-hosted Faith Matters Now, a web-only program for the network's religion section. This is the man ABC looks to on spiritual issues? Someone who won't even go so far as to declare bin Laden to be an evil man?
On June 02, 2008[3], Beck appeared on Good morning America to explain away some of the radical statements heard at Barack Obama's now former church.
A transcript of the May 03 O'Reilly Factor segment can be found below:
BILL O'REILLY: "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight. Military action always controversial in some circles and after Osama bin Laden was killed by the Navy SEALs, a few people had a problem with it, citing moral grounds. One of them is Father Edward Beck, religion contributor for ABC News. He joins us know. Now, you told our guys -- and I'm just going to quote you here -- "I'm uncomfortable with killing of Osama bin Laden being celebrated like a Super Bowl win," and you're referring to the people in front of the White House and other places, Times Square, very jubilant about bin Laden dying. Why are you uncomfortable with that?
FATHER EDWARD BECK: Rudolph Giuliani said he went to a church, which I think is a more appropriate action. It cannot be celebrated like a Super Bowl because it's a tragedy that this happened. Just because Osama killed all of these people, understandable a tragedy, killing him does not justify that action.
O'REILLY: OK. You see I disagree with you 180 degrees here. And you remember after World War II, V-Day, VJ-Day and everybody was celebrating the end of the war because we had defeated our enemies who had tried to kill us and slaughtered countless millions of civilians. That celebration, entirely appropriate. Wasn't it? It was an appropriate celebration, was it not?
BECK: Bill, when you watch-
O'REILLY: For victory over the evil forces, wasn't it?
BECK: Yes, but when you watch these people celebrating, how does it make us any better than those in the Mideast who celebrate when America falls?
O'REILLY: Well, here's why I think you're wrong on this.
BECK: This is not a Christian perspective.
O'REILLY: I think I'm a good Christian and I was very happy to see bin Laden killed because he was killing people and he was capable of doing more killing.
BECK: But how does his death then justify what happened to 3,000 people? You'd have to kill 3,000 people for you to talk about justice.
O'REILLY: No, no. If you -- if there is a criminal enterprise underway which al Qaeda certainly is, you would see that point, right?
BECK: Yes.
O'REILLY: OK. And the criminal enterprise cannot be stopped with any other method other than killing, then you have to kill. And when-
BECK: But you don't celebrate it.
O'REILLY: -the criminal enterprise is stopped- why not? That is a good thing.
BECK: Because it's maybe a necessary evil. But, what about love of enemies? What about Jesus from the cross saying these are my killers. These are terrorists. But I forgive them. They know not what to do.
O'REILLY: Personal forgiveness something the 9/11 families are entitled to. I'm not going to be -- entreat (ph) that because I didn't lose anybody in my family. But I'll tell you what, Jesus had rendered a Caesar and that meant that if you have to defend your country you are OK with defending your country. That's not an anti-Christian thing to do.
BECK: That was about money. He said love of enemies. Pray for those persecute you.
O'REILLY: But render to Caesar was a general thing- a general thing, all right, where the government takes care of the government, I take care of spiritual matters. You can't tell me that Jesus Christ doesn't want to see al Qaeda defeated. You can't sit there and tell me that.
BECK: I would say God is not going to take sides like we take sides. God has a different kind of justice.
O'REILLY: I mean, there's got to be a good and an evil in the world. You telling me that God doesn't take sides against evil? Is that what you're telling me?
BECK: I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that we don't judge what the evil is and how it's acted upon.
O'REILLY: Who is we? I judge evil. Who's we?
BECK: By what standards?
O'REILLY: By the standards of hurting innocent people. That's how I judge it.
BECK: Christianity says you can't kill somebody. All life is sacred.
O'REILLY: Christianity says I have a right to defend myself and so does my country.
BECK: Yes, as in a last resort. If that means killing somebody-
O'REILLY: And that's what it was.
BECK: Don't celebrate it. It's a necessary evil. Don't cheer about it like we're in a bar.
O'REILLY: You're celebrating a victory of your country. You're celebrating a victory of your country.
BECK: That's not what they're celebrating. They wanted Osama bin Laden dead. Now that he's dead, let's raise the flag. Well, you know what? It may be good that he's dead.
O'REILLY: I think you misinterpreted that, Father, with all due respect. I think that they were celebrating a victory over evil. And I don't think you understand, with all due respect again, the evil that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden had brought to the world. I'll give you the last word.
BECK: Bill, my father was a New York City firefighter. After 9/11 I was in the triage center at Chelsea Piers. I was counseling people. I've talked to people who've lost sons at 9/11.
O'REILLY: Let me ask you this.
BECK: I know what that's like.
O'REILLY: Was bin Laden evil?
BECK: That's not for me to judge. His actions were certainly were evil --
O'REILLY: Not for you to judge?
BECK: His actions certainly were evil and they caused a lot of harm and disruption.
O'REILLY: So you can't as a human being make a determination on good and evil? You cannot do that?
BECK: No, I think that's up God to ultimately decide who's evil.
O'REILLY: See? I can and I'm -- I'll probably be punished for it by the deity but --
BECK: I see a man's actions. I don't know a man's heart ever, totally.
O'REILLY: Well, I think I know bin Laden's heart.
BECK: I can say the actions were wrong and despicable and needed to be punished.
O'REILLY: All right. You're a standup guy for coming in. I appreciate it.
References
^ ABC News (abcnews.go.com)
^ Father Edward Beck (fatheredwardbeck.blogspot.com)
^ June 02, 2008 (newsbusters.org)
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/05/04/abc-news-religion-correspondent-i-cant-judge-whether-bin-laden-was-e#ixzz1LUK9xmPf
Read the original here.
ABC News Religion Correspondent: I Can't Judge Whether Bin Laden Was 'Evil'
According to the man ABC News[1] relies on for religious analysis, it's impossible to say whether Osama bin Laden was "evil." Father Edward Beck[2], the network's religion correspondent, appeared with Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday and offered moral equivalence on the subject of the terrorist's death.
When the O'Reilly Factor anchor pressed Beck on whether bin Laden truly represented malevolence, Beck replied, "That's not for me to judge. His actions were certainly were evil."
O'Reilly pressed Beck on this point, prompting the ABC News analyst to assert, "No, I think that's up to God to ultimately decide who's evil."
After asserting that the United States shouldn't celebrate bin Laden's death "like a Super Bowl," Beck compared American happiness over the terrorist's death to Middle East examples, such as celebrating on 9/11: "Yes, but when you watch these people celebrating, how does it make us any better than those in the Mid East who celebrate when America falls?"
(This prompted Bernie Goldberg, who appeared in an unrelated O'Reilly Factor segment, to interject about Beck. He derided, "The idea that... the Palestinians celebrated when they attacked the World Trade Center, we're just as bad if we celebrate when Osama bin Laden takes a bullet to the head. That's pathetic. That's pathetic. I mean, and that isn't Catholicism, that's liberalism.")
Beck, in his role as the religion correspondent, has appeared on Good Morning America and other ABC News programs. He has co-hosted Faith Matters Now, a web-only program for the network's religion section. This is the man ABC looks to on spiritual issues? Someone who won't even go so far as to declare bin Laden to be an evil man?
On June 02, 2008[3], Beck appeared on Good morning America to explain away some of the radical statements heard at Barack Obama's now former church.
A transcript of the May 03 O'Reilly Factor segment can be found below:
BILL O'REILLY: "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight. Military action always controversial in some circles and after Osama bin Laden was killed by the Navy SEALs, a few people had a problem with it, citing moral grounds. One of them is Father Edward Beck, religion contributor for ABC News. He joins us know. Now, you told our guys -- and I'm just going to quote you here -- "I'm uncomfortable with killing of Osama bin Laden being celebrated like a Super Bowl win," and you're referring to the people in front of the White House and other places, Times Square, very jubilant about bin Laden dying. Why are you uncomfortable with that?
FATHER EDWARD BECK: Rudolph Giuliani said he went to a church, which I think is a more appropriate action. It cannot be celebrated like a Super Bowl because it's a tragedy that this happened. Just because Osama killed all of these people, understandable a tragedy, killing him does not justify that action.
O'REILLY: OK. You see I disagree with you 180 degrees here. And you remember after World War II, V-Day, VJ-Day and everybody was celebrating the end of the war because we had defeated our enemies who had tried to kill us and slaughtered countless millions of civilians. That celebration, entirely appropriate. Wasn't it? It was an appropriate celebration, was it not?
BECK: Bill, when you watch-
O'REILLY: For victory over the evil forces, wasn't it?
BECK: Yes, but when you watch these people celebrating, how does it make us any better than those in the Mideast who celebrate when America falls?
O'REILLY: Well, here's why I think you're wrong on this.
BECK: This is not a Christian perspective.
O'REILLY: I think I'm a good Christian and I was very happy to see bin Laden killed because he was killing people and he was capable of doing more killing.
BECK: But how does his death then justify what happened to 3,000 people? You'd have to kill 3,000 people for you to talk about justice.
O'REILLY: No, no. If you -- if there is a criminal enterprise underway which al Qaeda certainly is, you would see that point, right?
BECK: Yes.
O'REILLY: OK. And the criminal enterprise cannot be stopped with any other method other than killing, then you have to kill. And when-
BECK: But you don't celebrate it.
O'REILLY: -the criminal enterprise is stopped- why not? That is a good thing.
BECK: Because it's maybe a necessary evil. But, what about love of enemies? What about Jesus from the cross saying these are my killers. These are terrorists. But I forgive them. They know not what to do.
O'REILLY: Personal forgiveness something the 9/11 families are entitled to. I'm not going to be -- entreat (ph) that because I didn't lose anybody in my family. But I'll tell you what, Jesus had rendered a Caesar and that meant that if you have to defend your country you are OK with defending your country. That's not an anti-Christian thing to do.
BECK: That was about money. He said love of enemies. Pray for those persecute you.
O'REILLY: But render to Caesar was a general thing- a general thing, all right, where the government takes care of the government, I take care of spiritual matters. You can't tell me that Jesus Christ doesn't want to see al Qaeda defeated. You can't sit there and tell me that.
BECK: I would say God is not going to take sides like we take sides. God has a different kind of justice.
O'REILLY: I mean, there's got to be a good and an evil in the world. You telling me that God doesn't take sides against evil? Is that what you're telling me?
BECK: I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that we don't judge what the evil is and how it's acted upon.
O'REILLY: Who is we? I judge evil. Who's we?
BECK: By what standards?
O'REILLY: By the standards of hurting innocent people. That's how I judge it.
BECK: Christianity says you can't kill somebody. All life is sacred.
O'REILLY: Christianity says I have a right to defend myself and so does my country.
BECK: Yes, as in a last resort. If that means killing somebody-
O'REILLY: And that's what it was.
BECK: Don't celebrate it. It's a necessary evil. Don't cheer about it like we're in a bar.
O'REILLY: You're celebrating a victory of your country. You're celebrating a victory of your country.
BECK: That's not what they're celebrating. They wanted Osama bin Laden dead. Now that he's dead, let's raise the flag. Well, you know what? It may be good that he's dead.
O'REILLY: I think you misinterpreted that, Father, with all due respect. I think that they were celebrating a victory over evil. And I don't think you understand, with all due respect again, the evil that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden had brought to the world. I'll give you the last word.
BECK: Bill, my father was a New York City firefighter. After 9/11 I was in the triage center at Chelsea Piers. I was counseling people. I've talked to people who've lost sons at 9/11.
O'REILLY: Let me ask you this.
BECK: I know what that's like.
O'REILLY: Was bin Laden evil?
BECK: That's not for me to judge. His actions were certainly were evil --
O'REILLY: Not for you to judge?
BECK: His actions certainly were evil and they caused a lot of harm and disruption.
O'REILLY: So you can't as a human being make a determination on good and evil? You cannot do that?
BECK: No, I think that's up God to ultimately decide who's evil.
O'REILLY: See? I can and I'm -- I'll probably be punished for it by the deity but --
BECK: I see a man's actions. I don't know a man's heart ever, totally.
O'REILLY: Well, I think I know bin Laden's heart.
BECK: I can say the actions were wrong and despicable and needed to be punished.
O'REILLY: All right. You're a standup guy for coming in. I appreciate it.
References
^ ABC News (abcnews.go.com)
^ Father Edward Beck (fatheredwardbeck.blogspot.com)
^ June 02, 2008 (newsbusters.org)
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/05/04/abc-news-religion-correspondent-i-cant-judge-whether-bin-laden-was-e#ixzz1LUK9xmPf
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
When is Hitch going to shut up?
Over at Slate, Christopher Hitchens yanks out yet another protracted column about how it's perfectly fine for him to discriminate against particular political candidates on the basis of religion. Going further, he argues that everyone should discriminate against candidates based on religious viewpoints.
What is so shocking is that Hitchens famously belongs to the group which faces the most widespread religious discrimination: he's an atheist. According to a recent Gallup poll, more than half of Americans would never vote for an atheist.
This begs a question: When you're in the most oppressed of the minorities, why are you encouraging oppression?
What is so shocking is that Hitchens famously belongs to the group which faces the most widespread religious discrimination: he's an atheist. According to a recent Gallup poll, more than half of Americans would never vote for an atheist.
This begs a question: When you're in the most oppressed of the minorities, why are you encouraging oppression?
Monday, November 26, 2007
Hitch is again off his rocker
I'm generally a fan of Christopher Hitchens' writing. Even when he's writing about something that I stridently disagree with, he usually does so with intelligence, thoughtful purpose, and passion. Today's article published in Slate, however, has little of that. Mr. Hitchens questions why Mitt Romney shouldn't be asked about his faith and questions Gov. Romney's assertion that it is un-American to bring up faith as a qualification for the office of President.
The U.S. Constitution is very clear on the issue and answers both questions flawlessly: Article VI states that "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." That does include Mormonism, no matter how personally repugnant Mr. HItchens may consider its tenants or how fickle he considers their positions. He goes on to slander the religion by comparing it to the KKK and to the Nation of Islam, both groups which have religious identities but not religions in their own right.
What's particularly surprising about the issue is that Mr. Hitchens' own religious views as an atheist would be more objectionable to most voters that Gov. Romney's views as a Mormon. We live in a nation where voters would rather have a fundamentalist Muslim or a Mormon as President than an atheist. Instead of trying to stir up religious persecution of a minority group that he finds offensive, he should shut up so as not to stir up further persecution of individuals with whom he shares ideology.
The U.S. Constitution is very clear on the issue and answers both questions flawlessly: Article VI states that "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." That does include Mormonism, no matter how personally repugnant Mr. HItchens may consider its tenants or how fickle he considers their positions. He goes on to slander the religion by comparing it to the KKK and to the Nation of Islam, both groups which have religious identities but not religions in their own right.
What's particularly surprising about the issue is that Mr. Hitchens' own religious views as an atheist would be more objectionable to most voters that Gov. Romney's views as a Mormon. We live in a nation where voters would rather have a fundamentalist Muslim or a Mormon as President than an atheist. Instead of trying to stir up religious persecution of a minority group that he finds offensive, he should shut up so as not to stir up further persecution of individuals with whom he shares ideology.
Mitt the Mormon
Why Romney Needs To Talk About His Faith
Fighting Words for SlateMitt Romney appears to think that, in respect of the bizarre beliefs of his church, he has come up with a twofer response. Not only can he decline to answer questions about these beliefs, he can also reap additional benefit from complaining that people keep asking him about them. In a video response of revolting sanctimony and self-pity last week, he responded to some allegedly anti-Mormon "push pull" calls in Iowa and New Hampshire by saying that it was "un-American" to bring up his "faith," especially "at a time when we are preparing for Thanksgiving," whatever that had to do with it. Additional interest is lent to this evasive tactic by the very well-argued case, made by Mark Hemmingway in National Review Online, that it was actually the Romney campaign that had initiated the ant-Mormon push-poll calls in the first place! What's that? A threefer? Let me count the ways: You encourage the raising of an awkward question in such a way as to make it seem illegitimate. You then strike a hurt attitude and say that you are being persecuted for your faith. This, in turn, discourages other reporters from raising the question. Yes, that's a three card monte.
According to Byron York, who has been riding around with Romney for National Review, it's working, as well. Most journalists have tacitly agreed that it's off-limits to ask the former governor about the tenents of the Mormon cult. Nor do they get much luck if they do ask: When Rob Schieffer of Face the Nation inquired whether Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden is or was or will be in the great state of Missouri, he was told by Romney to go ask the Mormons! However, we do have the governor in an off-guard moment in Iowa, saying that "The [Mormon] Church says that Christ appears and splits the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. ...And then, over a thousand years of the millennium, that the world is reigned in two places, Jerusalem and Missouri. ...The law will come from Missouri, and the other will be from Jerusalem."
It ought to be borne in mind that Romney is not a mere rank-and-file Mormon. His family is, and has been for generations, part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith. It is not just legitimate that he be asked about the beliefs that he has not just held, but has caused to be spread and caused to be inculcated into children. It is essential. Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to hear how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Yellow journalism is alive and well
The Independent (a London, U.K. based newspaper) reports that scientists there are about 10 years away from curing mitochondrial disease by merging the egg of one woman with mitochondria from a second woman, then using these to merge with a sperm to create an embryo. The Independent, in one of the most ridiculous cases of yellow journalism I've seen outside of the New York Time's "Al Qaeda in Iraq" euphemism*, calls this "Babies made by cloning techniques from the DNA of two women could be born within 10 years as ministers prepare to give the green light for embryos produced by biological material from three 'parents'."
Oh, come on. This has nothing to do with cloning, genetic alteration, or even DNA. They're talking about taking mitochondria; these aren't part of the human DNA. They're a separate organism that complex life has absorbed hundreds of millions of years ago. This has nothing at all to do with cloning or genes. It's horrifyingly irresponsible for the writer of this article to get such a ridiculously basic biological fact wrong.
*The New York Times requires its reports to refer to Al Qaeda in Iraq as "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni extremist group that American intelligence agencies say is led by foreigners" every time they refer to the group, despite the fact that it was created by a Jordanian and consists principally of Saudis, Jordanians, Pakistanis, and Syrians (thus, not "homegrown") and pledges allegiance to (and is accepted by) Osama bin Laden. They do this principally to discredit the U.S. operations in Iraq, also referring to action there as "occupation" even though the U.S. is there at the behest of a democratically elected government, is operating under U.N. Security Council resolutions, and does not control the government.
Oh, come on. This has nothing to do with cloning, genetic alteration, or even DNA. They're talking about taking mitochondria; these aren't part of the human DNA. They're a separate organism that complex life has absorbed hundreds of millions of years ago. This has nothing at all to do with cloning or genes. It's horrifyingly irresponsible for the writer of this article to get such a ridiculously basic biological fact wrong.
*The New York Times requires its reports to refer to Al Qaeda in Iraq as "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni extremist group that American intelligence agencies say is led by foreigners" every time they refer to the group, despite the fact that it was created by a Jordanian and consists principally of Saudis, Jordanians, Pakistanis, and Syrians (thus, not "homegrown") and pledges allegiance to (and is accepted by) Osama bin Laden. They do this principally to discredit the U.S. operations in Iraq, also referring to action there as "occupation" even though the U.S. is there at the behest of a democratically elected government, is operating under U.N. Security Council resolutions, and does not control the government.
The cloning revolution: Ministers to back controversial change to law
The IndependentBabies made by cloning techniques from the DNA of two women could be born within 10 years as ministers prepare to give the green light for embryos produced by biological material from three "parents". A new law, to be debated in the House of Commons tomorrow, opens the door for such hybrid eggs to be implanted in women.
The novel procedure is designed to find a cure for mitochondrial disease, a range of life-threatening conditions that affect one in 10,000 people.
The development has delighted scientists who say it will usher in a new wave of groundbreaking genetic research that could prevent thousands of children from being born with debilitating diseases.
But Christian groups and campaigners concerned about developments in human genetics have reacted with horror at what they see as the beginning of human cloning and the approval of "Frankenstein science."
The novel procedure is designed to find a cure for mitochondrial disease, a range of life-threatening conditions that affect one in 10,000 people.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Sudanese justice?
Memo to self: Do not go to any country ruled under sharia.
Facing 40 Lashes for 'Slur on Islam'
The SunThe British teacher facing 40 lashes in Sudan for letting her pupils name a teddy bear Mohammed had told friends how she was loving her life in the country.
Gillian Gibbons, a 54-year-old described as "timid and polite," has been arrested and accused of blasphemy against Islam's prophet.
The teacher, from Liverpool, let her class of seven-year-olds choose the teddy's name as part of a project at Unity High School in Sudan's capital Kharourm.
She was said to be "deeply distressed" in a police cell last night after learning that she faces the barbaric lashing under the Muslim state's strict sharia law.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Should the U.S. government close a private school for hatred?
What is going on in Virginia? A school funded and run by the Saudi government has been investigated by a Federal governmental panel which recommends its closing. Apparently, the school is teaching extremism including hatred for Jews. The school, for its part, denies this.
This really brings up a very clear difficulty. Does the government have a right to investigate religious schools in the U.S. and intervene in the teaching? The difficulty of balancing safety concerns with the religious rights of the school are obvious, even if the religious tenants of the school are disturbing to the vast majority of Americans. Let's just hope that when the school says it's not spreading hate that they're being honest with us. This has the potential to be a very messy situation otherwise.
This really brings up a very clear difficulty. Does the government have a right to investigate religious schools in the U.S. and intervene in the teaching? The difficulty of balancing safety concerns with the religious rights of the school are obvious, even if the religious tenants of the school are disturbing to the vast majority of Americans. Let's just hope that when the school says it's not spreading hate that they're being honest with us. This has the potential to be a very messy situation otherwise.
Feds Recommend Closing Saudi School in Va.
ABC NewsA private Islamic school supported by the Saudi government should be shut down until the U.S. government can ensure the school is not fostering radical Islam, a federal panel recommends.
In a report released Thursday, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom broadly criticized what it calls a lack of religious freedom in Saudi society and promotion of religious extremism at Saudi schools.
Particular criticism is leveled at the Islamic Saudi Academy, a private school serving nearly 1,000 students in grades K-12 at two campuses in northern Virginia's Fairfax County.
The commission's report says the academy hews closely to the curriculum used at Saudi schools, which they criticism for promoting hated of and intolerance against Jews, Christians, and Shiite Muslims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
