Watch Out, Pesky Religious Extremists About....

Yes, once more a bunch of religious zealots are threatening the democratic process. Once more these extremists are seeking to gain power. Once more, fanatics are aiming to destabilise a democratically elected government to suit their own ends. However, this time it's not Islam but the Catholic Church who are at it (via Bloomberg):

It isn't just People's Party leader Mariano Rajoy who's running against Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

Spain's Catholic bishops, angered by the prime minister's decisions to legalize gay marriage and speed divorce procedures, are targeting his re-election effort with messages urging their flock to use the March 9 election to overturn what they call "seriously unjust" policies.

While the Spanish clergy has released moral-guidance notes in most elections since Spain became a democracy in 1978, it has never before so pointedly targeted a candidate.

With Mass attendance at its lowest level ever, the nation's Catholic leaders "feel they are under attack by secular forces, and are defending themselves like a wounded beast by lashing back," said Sebastian Balfour, professor of Spanish studies at the London School of Economics. "This shows the extent of the politicization of the church."

In December, the first church-organized protest in 30 years drew 1 million supporters in Madrid; Pope Benedict XVI spoke via video link. The capital's archbishop accused the premier of taking a "step backward for human rights."

Of course, the Catholic church are still bitter that Franco's Catholic obsessed tyranny came to an end and the people had a right to determine the direction of their country for the first time in forty years. Oh how they yearn for the days of the sercet police and 100% church attendence. How they wish another Franco would crush those pesky atheists and secularists. The right's favourite religion, still infatuated with dictatorship and tyranny.

Free Men in a Hierarchical Structure

I had to share this barking mad comment from my 'About' page:

In league with the stones... Every September, I recall that is more than half a century (62 years) since I landed at Nagasaki with the 2nd Marine Division in the original occupation of Japan following World War II. This time every year, I have watched and listened to the light-hearted "peaceniks" and their light-headed symbolism-without-substance of ringing bells, flying pigeons, floating candles, and sonorous chanting and I recall again that "Peace is not a cause - it is an effect."

In July, 1945, my fellow 8th RCT Marines [I was a BARman] and I returned to Saipan following the successful conclusion of the Battle of Okinawa. We were issued new equipment and replacements joined each outfit in preparation for our coming amphibious assault on the home islands of Japan.

B-29 bombing had leveled the major cities of Japan, including Kobe, Osaka, Nagoya, Yokohama, Yokosuka, and Tokyo.

We were informed we would land three Marine divisions and six Army divisions, perhaps abreast, with large reserves following us in. It was estimated that it would cost half a million casualties to subdue the Japanese homeland.

In August, the A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima but the Japanese government refused to surrender. Three days later a second A-bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. The Imperial Japanese government finally surrendered.

Following the 1941 sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, a Japanese admiral said, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." Indeed, they had. Not surprisingly, the atomic bomb was produced by a free people functioning in a free environment. Not surprisingly because the creative process is a natural human choice-making process and inventiveness occurs most readily where choice-making opportunities abound. America!

Tamper with a giant, indeed! Tyrants, beware: Free men are nature's pit bulls of Liberty! The Japanese learned the hard way what tyrants of any generation should know: Never start a war with a free people - you never know what they may invent!

As a newly assigned member of a U.S. Marine intelligence section, I had a unique opportunity to visit many major cities of Japan, including Tokyo and Hiroshima, within weeks of their destruction. For a full year I observed the beaches, weapons, and troops we would have assaulted had the A-bombs not been dropped. Yes, it would have been very destructive for all, but especially for the people of Japan.

When we landed in Japan, for what came to be the finest and most humane occupation of a defeated enemy in recorded history, it was with great appreciation, thanksgiving, and praise for the atomic bomb team, including the aircrew of the Enola Gay. A half million American homes had been spared the Gold Star flag, including, I'm sure, my own.

Whenever I hear the apologists expressing guilt and shame for A-bombing and ending the war Japan had started (they ignore the cause-effect relation between Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki), I have noted that neither the effete critics nor the puff-adder politicians are among us in the assault landing-craft or the stinking rice paddies of their suggested alternative, "conventional" warfare. Stammering reluctance is obvious and continuous, but they do love to pontificate about the Rights that others, and the Bomb, have bought and preserved for them.

The vanities of ignorance and camouflaged cowardice abound as license for the assertion of virtuous "rights" purchased by the blood of others - those others who have borne the burden and physical expense of Rights whining apologists so casually and self-righteously claim.

At best, these fakers manifest a profound and cryptic ignorance of causal relations, myopic perception, and dull I.Q. At worst, there is a word and description in The Constitution defining those who love the enemy more than they love their own countrymen and their own posterity. Every Yankee Doodle Dandy knows what that word is.

In 1945, America was the only nation in the world with the Bomb and it behaved responsibly and respectfully. It remained so until two among us betrayed it to the Kremlin. Still, this American weapon system has been the prime deterrent to earth's latest model world- tyranny: Seventy years of Soviet collectivist definition, coercion, and domination of individual human beings.

The message is this: Trust Freedom. Remember, tyrants never learn. The restriction of Freedom is the limitation of human choice, and choice is the fulcrum-point of the creative process in human affairs. As earth's choicemaker, it is our human identity on nature's beautiful blue planet and the natural premise of man's free institutions, environments, and respectful relations with one another. Made in the image of our Creator, free men choose, create, and progress - or die.

Free men should not fear the moon-god-crowd oppressor nor choose any of his ways. Recall with a confident Job and a victorious David, "Know ye not that you are in league with the stones of the field?"
Semper Fidelis Jim Baxter Sgt. USMC WW II and Korean War
Job 5:23 Proverbs 3:31 I Samuel 17:40 See: http://www.choicemaker.net/

Do you see what he did there?? Freedom repeated countless times, followed by references to the Bible. Poor soul cannot see the contradiction. As for America behaving responsibly, perhaps it is best not to rake over 60 years of American imperialism.

Seumas Milne - Muslims Are Under Attack

Fascinating article by Seumas Milne in today's Guardian about the witch hunt being conducted by the mainstream media.

Britons are now more suspicious of Muslims than are Americans or citizens of any other major western European country, including France. According to an international Harris poll last month, nearly 30% of British people believe it's impossible to be both a Muslim and a Briton (compared with 14% who think you can't be French and a Muslim); 38% think the presence of Muslims in the country is a threat to national security (compared with 21% in the US); and 46% believe that Muslims have too much political power in Britain, far above the level of any other surveyed country. You might think that these findings, reported in the Financial Times, would have been the occasion for some soul-searching about where British society is going, the state of community relations, and a new self-restraint in the way Muslim stories are covered in the media.

Not a bit of it. The fact that a large minority of Britons have some of the most Islamophobic attitudes in the western world has passed without comment. Instead, we have since been treated to a renewed barrage of lurid and hostile stories about Muslims which can only have further inflamed anti-Muslim opinion and the community's own sense of being under permanent siege. This isn't just a problem of hate-filled tabloid rants, such as the Express's denunciation of Muslims' "alien and threatening outfits", or Richard Littlejohn's Muslim-baiting in the Mail. For the past three weeks, there has been a stream of hostile coverage in the heavyweight press and on TV current affairs programmes.

This week it is was an hour-long Channel 4 Dispatches about attacks on Muslim converts to Christianity; last week it was the BBC Newsnight programme's 20-minute interview with the latest defector from the non-violent Islamist party Hizb ut-Tahrir; the week before that it was a Newsnight special on radical Islamist books in east London libraries, complete with sinister music and a round-table debate. The same week there was a Times front-page splash about the "hardline takeover of British mosques", focused on the deeply conservative Deobandi religious movement which has long had a strong presence among British Muslims of Pakistani origin. For both Newsnight programmes, it was apparently felt that Patrick Mercer - the Tory MP sacked by David Cameron for making racially inflammatory remarks and appointed a security adviser by Gordon Brown - was the ideal person to comment on Muslim issues. Meanwhile, the novelist Martin Amis denounced "liberal relativist appeasers" of a "racist, misogynist, homophobic, totalitarian, inquisitorial, imperialist and genocidal" doctrine.

He also adds:

.......and Crown Prosecution Service figures show that 82% of convictions for identified religiously aggravated offences last year involved attacks on Muslims.

A reader on CiF adds an extra bit of context regarding this statistic:

"A total of 51 religiously aggravated charges were prosecuted, an increase of 18.6 per cent on 2004-05. Nearly 70 per cent of these cases were prosecuted in the magistrates' courts with religiously aggravated public order offences accounting for almost half the charges.The actual or perceived religion of the victim was not known in 21 out of 43 cases. In the 22 known cases, 18 victims were identified as Muslim, three as Christian and one as Sikh. The data covers the period following 7 July 2005 London bombings and the number of victims identified as Muslim throughout the whole of last year was 81.8 per cent, a rise of five per cent on the previous"

The media (and society as a whole) is on the offensive against a religious minority. Souhnd familiar?

Malaysia Shuts Down Newspaper Over Image of Prophet

A newspaper shut down for depicting a prophet smoking and drinking? Well, I guess that must be a picture of the Prophet Mohammed, right? Wrong. This is a picture of Jesus. Wonder how many of those that were up in arms about the Danish cartoon will actually campaign for the right to publish Jesus toking on a fag and downing a bevvie? My guess? Not many.

Just Another Evangelical Crusade....

Another day, another attack on Western values by religious extremists. But wait, what's this?? They aren't Muslims, they're white, middle-class Christians. Well, that's ok because they're on our side, right? Mmmm, imagine the furore if this action was being taken by a Muslim. Anyway, the really disturbing aspect of this story is revealed on the BBC's site:

Mr Playfoot and his wife Heather are part of the volunteer team which runs the UK branch of the Silver Ring Thing from their church in Horsham.

Hang on a second the girl's father 'runs' the UK branch of the Silver Ring Thing? Is it just possible that her father might be using this issue to raise awareness of the ridiculous 'Silver Ring Thing' (beloved of American evangelicals)? It would certainly appear so. This is nothing more than a particularly foul propaganda campaign that makes full use of the current Islamophobic environment that has infected the UK, an environment that has not been seen since the 1930s. Let's hope this court case is dismissed and Mr Playfoot and his ilk return from wherever it was they crawled out from.

Walmart & the Nuns

Oh yes, first let's see how this came to light.

Wal-Mart has won a temporary restraining order against a fired employee who spilled the beans about the company’s spying operations to the Wall Street Journal on April 4.

Bruce Gabbard told the Journal that he was part of a sophisticated company surveillance operation that spied not only on employees but on shareholders and critics. The outfit was called the Threat Research and Analysis Group.
According to Gabbard, Wal-Mart’s spies kept tabs on several groups, including the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR). After the story broke, Wal-Mart said it regretted that shareholder groups had been monitored. But that’s not enough for the Interfaith Center. On April 9, it demanded a formal apology.

“We were surprised and disappointed to read the results of the Wall Street Journal investigative report,” four leaders of the group said in a statement. “We view such actions as a serious breach of the trust relationship between shareholders and their company. . . . We ask that Wal-Mart formally apologize to investors and to others whose expectations of privacy has been breached.”

Signing the letter was Sister Judy Byron of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, U.S.-Ontario Province; Sister Susan Mika, who represents the Benedictine Sisters of Boerne, Texas; Father Michael Hoolahan, the interim executive director of the ICCR; and Mark Regier, chair of the ICCR’s governing board.

The Wall Street Journal article said that Wal-Mart had done “some preliminary background work on the potential threat assessment” of the Benedictine Sisters of Boerne, Texas.

So Walmart has a corporate spying division that engages in surveillance and counter espionage on its critic, especially if they are that most devastating of enemies NUNS! But you know these are some admirable ladies, Sister Susan Mika is leading a campaign against evil in all its corporate forms

They say the spirit of St. Benedict's legacy of stewardship to the community and the earth drives them to file dozens of shareholder resolutions every year on a wide variety of issues, from workers' wages at Alcoa (AA) to genetically modified crops at DuPont (DD). Sister Susan has traveled several times to the U.S.-Mexican border to see the working conditions at American companies operating in special Mexican economic zones. This year as proxy season begins, Sister Susan and her order are going after Coca-Cola

Now they are asking Walmart why they have been labelled a security threat:

"In no way have we ever been a threat to the company in that sense. We might be a threat in the kind of question that we're asking, but not a security threat," Sister Mika said.

The sisters have raised questions on wages, human rights, health care and the pay disparity between CEOs and workers. They believe that's why Wal-Mart has launched a surveillance operation on the small church group.

"We wanted to find out more about what was actually happening, and did they do any surveillance on us, either personally or as a community, and to let us know what that would be, and to apologize to us," Sister Mika said.

It remains to be seen if the UK can stop ASDA from going to hell. The Nuns are watching you!

Christian Groups Threaten Our Democracy

Apologies for the lack of posting the past couple of days. I was intending to blog last night, but we had a power cut which subsequently disabled the main PC. Luckily, my father in law has a lap top that I am able to borrow (on the downside, the keyboard layout is totaally different to what it says on the keys, so the punctuation might be a little odd). Anyway, one of the dubious pleasures when I am away, is the ability to watch Fox News. Now, I do not have SKY at home so, although I am aware of the content, I am not subjected to it every day. What is particularly fascinating at the moment is the focus on James Cameron's new documentary. Particularly in light of the storm caused over the Danish cartoons.

Whilst watching Neil Cavuto the other day, I was interested to see him interview a member of the Christian community about the documentary. During the course of the interview, Cavuto asked why Christians have been so calm in their response. The guy he was interviewing claimed this is because they are taught to 'turn the other cheek', in contrast to the Muslim community. This went unchallenged (this is Fox after all) and there was no attempt to balance this viewpoint. Imagine my surprise when I watch it today, only to see a Christian demanding that the documentary should not be broadcast. According to him, the documentary is offensive towards Christians. Yet, nobody claimed that this was an attack on free speech (as would have been the case if this had been a Muslim protesting). Mmmm, that kinda got me thinking. When the Muslim community protested about the publication of the cartoons, they were smeared as attacking the right to free speech. It was claimed that Christians would never behave in this way, and that their response was disproportionate to the cartoons themselves. Yet, according to Fox, it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to demand that a programme should not be broadcast because it is 'offensive' to them. This is, of course, not without precedent.

Back in January 2005, a cult known as Christian Voice, went beserk when the BBC aired Jerry Springer - The Opera. They even went so far as to claim that the programme breached their human rights. Luckily, the BBC ignored their protests and pushed ahead anyway, refusing to acquiesce to a bunch of religious zealots. Of course, we all know what the response would be if the Muslim community were to protest against a similar show about the Prophet Mohammed. The mainstream media would work itself into a frenzy of attacks upon the Muslim community.

Now, those that seek to protect the extremist Christian lobby would argue that they do not resort to violence to further their cause. They would argue that only the Muslim community would protest through violent means. This is, of course, entirely false. The Christian community is equally guilty of using violence to further it's cause. For example, there are those in America who have been guilty of murdering many abortion providers, including three doctors. All of these murders were committed by those that claimed to be Christian. There has been a campaign of violence and intimidation against abortion providers for many years and these tactics have been slowly making their way over to the UK. James Dowson in particular has been guilty of encouraging attacks on those that practice abortion. He has distributed names and addresses via the internet and encouraged those who share his twisted agenda to send hate mail and death threats in an attempt to intimidate those who do not share his views. Again, imagine how the mainstream media would react if a Muslim will engaging in such activities. No doubt they would be threatened with extradition, they would certainly not be ignored.

The supposed silence on questions of Islam, whilst Christianity is under continual attack, is a total fabrication. There have been continual attacks on the Muslim community in recent years, whilst the Christian community is treated with total veneration. As Media Matters has noted, commentators such as Glenn Beck and Bill Donohue, make constant attacks on Islam and yet will not accept any legitimate criticism of Christianity. Media Matters notes Glenn Beck's comments that:

"There is a double standard in the world today. Treat Christians one way, but heaven help you if you try that with anybody else's religion."

But when you examine his record, there is a wide range of attacks on Islam:


During a November 14, 2006, interview with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), who recently became the first Muslim elected to Congress, Beck said: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' "

Beck mocked Islam by "mark[ing] the death" of Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with a "Zarqawi bacon cake."

He described as "surprising" a letter criticizing Al Qaeda in Iraq because "the man who wrote it" -- Islamic Society of Nevada director Aslam Abdullah -- "is a Muslim."

Beck aired a segment mocking the names of several missing Egyptian students in which the announcer said that one "may or may not be accompanied by his camel." The segment showed pictures of crowds and pointed to random, unidentifiable people as the missing Egyptians. It ended with a reading of the students' names in quick succession followed by the announcer pretending to gag as he struggled to pronounce them.

As for Donohue, his record is much the same:

On the February 9, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Donohue said: "People don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty."

On the December 8, 2004, edition of Scarborough Country, he said: "We've already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost."

In 2004, Media Matters first detailed anti-Catholic comments made by Jerome Corsi, who, as co-author of Unfit for Command (Regnery, August 2004), was one of the ringleaders of the smear campaign by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) -- a Catholic presidential candidate. Among Corsi's bigoted comments: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press." Despite the uproar surrounding Corsi's comments, Donohue subsequently dismissed the comments as "quips."

The very idea that somehow criticism of Islam is not allowed in the media is a ridiculous notion. The media is dominated with it. When there is an outcry by the Muslim community, there is talk of an over-reaction. When there is an outcry in the Christian community, there is talk of a community being under sustained attack. The fact of the matter is that both communities are guilty of over reacting when their faith is criticised. The difference is that the media always seeks to defend the Christian community, whilst seeking to demonise the Muslim community.

Inherent Violence

One of the things that always makes me laugh about the frenzy over Islam, is the continual reference to Islam as a 'violent religion'. This terminology is often used by many on the right in their efforts to smear all Muslims as potential terrorists. The statement is laughable as it clearly implies that certain other religions are not in anyway based on violence. However, just a quick browse through the Old Testament is enough to undermine the argument that the other major faiths are somehow less violent in their foundation. The following excerpts from the Old Testament are taken from the excellent Brick Testament:

Deuteronomy 21:18

'If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not listen to the voice of his father....'

Deuteronomy 21:18

'...or his mother...'

Deuteronomy 21:18

'...even when they punish him...'

Deuteronomy 21:19

'...his father and mother must take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town.'

Deuteronomy 21:20

'They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard."'

Deuteronomy 21:21

'All the men of the town must then stone him to death. You must banish this evil from among you.'

That wasn't violent was it?? What about this:

Deuteronomy 13:6-8

'If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him.'

Deuteronomy 13:8-9

'You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow.'

Deuteronomy 13:9-10

'Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death.'

The idea that Islam is founded on violence whilst Christianity and Judaism are somehow pure, is a total fallacy. The simple fact is that all organised religions are inherently violent, all faiths have violence beating within their core. To single out one religion as an entirely violent one, is to fail to understand the nature of organised religion.