Alpine Summit

Friday, April 28, 2006

Funding Terrorism: French Policy

Jacques Chirac, that master of international relations, has urged the world bank to fund Hamas. Of course, to advocate funding murderous fundamentalist Muslims isn't exactly a palettable position to take. So, his strategy is eerily similar to that of Iraq.

France believes aid "must be maintained for humanitarian reasons, as well as for political reasons," Chirac said. "And it will push for this continuance (of aid) within the international community and notably within the European Union."

"Okay, we don't want to fund the bad stuff, but what about the simple goat farmers who need that money to simply live?" I say that since the people voted this group in, they can be considered part of that group and therefore complicit with terrorism (at least). If they wanted a terrorist group running their country, meaning they starve, then so be it--that was their choice.

If there are people in Palestine who didn't vote for them, and don't agree with what Hamas is doing, then they need to leave the country and seek citizenship elsewhere or change it from within (for the more adventerous types who think they won't be beheaded).

Iraq was actually different since the people didn't elect Saddam in a free election. Oddly enough, though, France was using the infrastructure of the U.N. humanitarian "Oil for Food" program to illegally sell military weapons to Saddam. Now we see them trying to set up another "humanitarian" aid system through the world bank with yet another nation hostile to stability and civilization. When is somebody going to see that the motives of France are so self-serving as to be a threat to the rest of the world?

Chirac said humanitarian aid must be maintained and enlarged "in particularly through the agencies of the United Nations," his spokesman said. He said aid must channel through institutions independent of the Palestinian government.

The French leader also suggested that more aid could be placed under the authority of Abbas, a moderate, his spokesman said.

I wonder what color the sky is in Chirac's world? First off, since the Oil for Food scandal as all but completely destroyed ANY credibility with the U.N. and its ability to handle money competently (or incorruptibly), this is just another reason to see this as France trying to set up another corrupt dealing to sell its weapons (subsidized by the U.S. through NATO, I might add) to evil people. Second, the Hamas government said they would only be willing to accept the money if given total control over it: meaning they would buy guns instead of butter... just like Iraq.

Omar Abdelrazek, Hamas finance minister, said: "In principle we don't have a problem with that. But we have to talk about the details and preserve the rights of the ministry of finance to control and oversee all the financial procedures."

What do you get when you combine incompetence with arrogance? The French. What does that mean for the rest of us? When the terrorist come, they'll be holding American-derived French weapons.

|

AIDS Amazing!

I am absolutely surprised by these recent findings about the spread of AIDS.

Halperin said he and his colleagues discovered that regular sex partners rarely use condoms, and abstinence merely delays HIV infection among young people by one or two years. For example, condom use in Ghana and Senegal seems to have helped in the reduction of the spread of the HIV, which in those countries is particularly prevalent among commercial sex workers and their partners. However, condom use in South Africa and Botswana has had little effect in reducing those countries' HIV epidemics -- which have reached the general population -- because regular sex partners rarely use condoms consistently. In comparison, faithfulness to one partner has worked at reducing HIV prevalence in Uganda and Kenya, according to Halperin.


So, AIDS is less prevalent among groups of people who don't put themselves in the situation to contract the virus... wow. This is shocking and absolutely counter-intuitive to how one would think a virus that is spread predominantly through immoral acts behaves.

|

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Crashing at the Theater

I will be going to see "Flight 93" this weekend and from what I've heard, it's going to be a great film. David Beamer, whose son died on Flight 93, wrote an opinion for the Wall Street Journal praising the film.

This film further reminds us of the nature of the enemy we face. An enemy who will stop at nothing to achieve world domination and force a life devoid of freedom upon all. Their methods are inhumane and their targets are the innocent and unsuspecting. We call this conflict the "War on Terror." This film is a wake-up call. And although we abhor terrorism as a tactic, we are at war with a real enemy and it is personal.

Of course, as I predicted on Dadmanly's site, people are denouncing the film as "racist" because it shows the terrorists as Arab Muslims, nevermind the point that the hijackers WERE in fact, Arab Muslims. Not only that, but showing the terrorists praying in a hotel before beginning the attacks illustrates the nature of our enemy.

They are religious fanatics doing despicable things because their God (whom I refer to as "the Deceiver") told them to do it. Also, again with the "racist" label on Muslims! Islam is not a race--it's a religion. Why do people continually say this? I never hear people call Christian bashers "racist," I wonder why that is?

Anyway, I have high hopes for this film, and I'll give my thoughts on it after I see it for myself. David Beamer has some more advice concerning this.

Be reminded of our very real enemy. Be inspired by a true story of heroic actions taken by ordinary people with victorious consequences. Be thankful for each precious day of life with a loved one and make the most of it. Resolve to take the right action in the situations of life, whatever they may be. Resolve to give thanks and support to those men, women, leaders and commanders who to this day (1,687 days since Sept. 11, 2001) continue the counterattacks on our enemy and in so doing keep us safe and our freedoms intact.

May the taste of freedom for people of the Middle East hasten victory. The enemy we face does not have the word "surrender" in their dictionary. We must not have the word "retreat" in ours. We surely want our troops home as soon as possible. That said, they cannot come home in retreat. They must come home victoriously. Pray for them.

I couldn't put it better myself.

|

Seditious Vandals at UNC

Blackfive links to a story of vandalism at the University of North Carolina. He has pictures of the Navy and Army doors to the ROTC armory spray painted and red paint drenched all over the ground.

Obvious comments about freedom-hating hippies aside, why didn't they vandalize the Air Force door? My guess is they don't really have a problem with the Air Force. This seems odd since it's the Air Force that drops bombs on all those "innocent" civilians (known to the rest of us as "terrorists") that the hippies are always complaining about. On the other hand, since I'm joining the Army, I should feel somewhat obligated to say that they thought it just wasn't worth the paint to insult them. :) I mean really; how much damage can you really do from a chair? Oh.

I don't think there are too many who think hippies (or lefties like this) are burdened with an overabundance of smarts. One final thing: this is yet another example of unprotected speech, Steve, because it (again) involved vandalism. Had someone stopped these people, I would be applauding them just as much as I do Rick Monday.

|

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Burning Browsers

A fan of Firefox (no it wasn't me before you ask) made this video. I think he/she captures Microsoft's efforts to make IE more secure quite well. I think you can get the underlying statement they're trying to make.

I love Firefox.

|

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Celebrating an Anniversary

Michelle Malkin reminds us of an iconic moment in 1976 when two hippies tried burning an American flag at a baseball game.

In honor of the 30th anniversary of Monday's act, the Los Angeles Dodgers will recognize him on Sunday, April 23 with a video tribute. He'll also throw out the first ceremonial pitch. The The Washington Post has a nice write-up.

It's pretty interesting that nobody knows or cares about who the hippies were--or why they wanted to burn the flag. Just some food for thought for the liberals.

It wasn't that the guy simply rescued a piece of fabric from being burned, he rescued the symbol of this nation. A symbol that is the envy of nations and synonymous with "freedom." It's a symbol that has been bought and paid for in the blood of those who stood up and refused to allow liberty to die.

I think the picture itself is iconic. How appropriate is it that the "average citizen" stepped up to rescue the nation from the clutches of those who posess its very freedoms, but wish to destroy them?

|

Monday, April 24, 2006

Koran Studies 3

As I haven't illustrated the peacefullness of the "Religion of Peace (TM)," I thought of highlighting Surah 4:74, "Women."

Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).

For all Muslim's talk on the difference between fighting war and dying fighting infidels actually meaning some sort of evangelistic struggle, this seems pretty violent to me. If this means something other than open hostility towards infidels, I would have a hard time seeing it. When using terminology like "dying" and "fighting," the images conjured would be that of open, literal, battle.

In the "news" today was the Muslim Thinker's Society chanting "the real Holocaust is coming" among other things, on a street in New York. I'm guessing they don't subscribe to the "evangelistic struggle" school of thought.

By the way, does anyone else see the irony of these terrorist sympathizers pulling for Sharia law and suppression of freedom in the name of Islam while at the same time exercising seditious speech against the United States--the very place that is ensuring their freedom?

|

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Not a Petty Officer

Prince Harry is spoiling for a fight. It's nice to see that even though his status as a prince affords him the opportunity to avoid any kind of danger, he's willing to step up and serve his country as a true patriot should. It's also a nice change from the frivolity you often hear about from Buckingham Palace. With an adulterous spoiled brat of a father, and a dead mother, I'm surprised he turned out so well.

Also, does this mean Harry thinks what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan is worth fighting for? Either way, he makes me proud... and I'm not even British! It think it has more to do with knowing that America isn't the last place where truly brave souls willing to stand up to evil can be found.

|

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Silent Hill

I got back from seeing "Silent Hill" and thought to comment on an aspect of the movie I thought was interesting regarding God and salvation. Please be warned, I let spill some spoilers so don't read this if you plan on seeing the movie.

Throughout the movie, we see background images of Biblical verses, latin phrases testifying to God's glory, and Christian symbols. I found it quite ironic, because in the movie, we meet a group of people who are uber-devout Christians stuck in this hellish place of Silent Hill. It turns out they burned witches and, as a result of a failed burning in the 1970's, were plunged into the hell of the 9 year old girl they had failed to burn to death.

The girl began to despise the entire town for what they had done and eventually a demon (whom I believe was the devil) came and made a deal to give the girl her revenge on the town. What is interesting is that this group of people praising and praying to God were in the same place as this girl who hated and tormented them.

Burning people at the stake is taking the place of God by judging and punishing others. What they were in hell for, in my opinion, was that they refused to admit that they were sinning against God, and that they had broken His law. That's only half the equation though since everyone sins. What distinguished the citizens of Silent Hill was that they refused to accept that they had done wrong by judging others and refused to repent. In the end, the girl receives the revenge she wanted so badly from the beginning, and the "faithful" receive the reward they so deserved. All the while, God was nowhere to be found.

What I did see as interesting was that these two sides: the girl and the townspeople, were diametrically opposed and yet in the same place spiritually because they both hated each other. It really speaks to patience and forgiveness for your fellow man and how hating those who have wronged you may mean you spend the rest of eternity with them.

|

X-Treme!!! Philosophy!!!

For something a bit more light-hearted than mothers betraying their sons, and 27 year old single mothers being (allegedly) raped, I bring you Action Philosophers! Humorous overviews of famous philosophers and their ideas about things. It phunny! It's phantastic! It's Philosophy!

|

Friday, April 21, 2006

Mama Sheehan Still At It

Casey Sheehan's mother notes that her son does not have a grave stone yet because of the mortuary, and Chimpy McBushitlerhalliburton. Lt Smash has the whole story... the whole story.

This is despicable that a mother could use her son in such a manner as Casey Sheehan's mother has. Perhaps it's important to remember how her "fascist-enabling," "immoral" soldier of a son died and then ask if she really ever gave a crap about him or the sacrifice he made for others.

|

Thursday, April 20, 2006

His Ass is Available

My roomate pointed me to this public access video of one man's evangelistic ministry. He's certainly not Billy Graham. Enjoy. I know I did!

|

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Starting What Can't Be Finished

Reading about the alleged rape of a 27 year old stripper, it comes to mind that the motto I most closely live my life by would have saved all these people a whole lot of trouble: don't start nothing, won't be nothing. I realize the grammar isn't entirely correct, but I find it to be sound advice.

You can argue the morality of these kinds of things, and I'm going to sound like a Bible-thumper here, but I find that applying the moral principles of the Bible to your life will prevent you from doing stupid things. I'm not saying her attackers aren't to blame for this--they are. But had she not even been stripping, or in other words, overtly enticing them for ridiculous amounts of money, this probably would not have happened to her. Of course on the flip side of that, had the boys not hired a stripper, the situation would have been completely avoided as well.

So perhaps this should be a lesson to girls thinking about taking up this profession--or guys thinking about hiring a stripper. I realize the money is good, but is it worth the risk you run? The reason I have never been arrested for anything is because I refuse to put myself in a situation where that could happen. Living above reproach does have its advantages.

|

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Cancers of Varying Degrees

tracked back at: Common Folk Using Common Sense

A great column at NRO by Ned Rice about the failed war... on cancer. It's easy to see he's not talking about cancer, but another war most are concerned about these days. Here's the hint: it rhymes with "schmerrorism."

The analogy is a perfect one because not only is he pointing out the nature of the enemy (irrational, irreconcilable, and reproductive), but he's mocking the way in which people who oppose to the war have responded to it thinking something non-warlike could be done about it. This is fantastic reading for anyone interested in knowing how stupid the left sounds to people like me when they start whining about war being bad no matter what the cause.

|

Monday, April 17, 2006

My Right to Free Speech

The reason I find so many liberals to be total idiots is because of instances such as this one where a professor (someone who should know better) encouraged her students (graduate students who should also know better) to stifle dissent and silence the opposition.

"I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to," Jacobsen said.

This woman doesn't seem to realize that the right to freedom of speech does not extend to stifling other's rights. Therefore, destroying or silencing another's statement or display of that statement is not protected speech. If that's the case, then I have the right to burn anyone I deem to be offensive at the stake. I'm just exercising my right to speaking out against offensive speech by silencing it... for good.

As Dinesh D'Souza would say about these people: "they are educated beyond their intelligence."

|

High Wire

Blackfive has started a milblog wire service. It's a whole lot of awesome reading on all the positive stories nobody is hearing about from the MSM. This seems to be an effort to provide papers and other news sources with more balanced coverage of the war in Iraq. As Blackfive says, the MSM wire reporters aren't really doing their jobs.

The reporters sit in hotels in the Green Zone making no effort to cover stories in the majority of the country where people are living happy and free. They wait for the next explosion and send a stringer out to ask for a body count, then fire off a dispatch about the increasing violence.

So now I'm going to add the milblogger wire to my blogroll since it will be a cold day in Iraq before I hear about what good our troops are doing. This is certainly a lofty purpose and I wish them all the best of luck as their second job as freelance reporters.

|

Another Blow to Global Warming

trackbacked at: basil's blog, pirate's cove, pirates! man your women!

The originator of the global warming theory has been outed as a liar and disavowed by NASA scientists. This coupled with the temperature miscalibration from the satellites used to generate the "proof" of warming tells me this theory is even further crap.

Not only that, but even if global warming were happening, they would still have to explain how 5% of the world's greenhouse gasses--the greenhouse gasses generated by humans--was responsible for it. That's assuming the enviro-hippies are blaming people and capitalism for such things, which they are.

|

Sunday, April 16, 2006

He is Risen, Indeed!

Just a quick note to you all: I spent this last weekend in Worland celebrating Easter with my family. It was quite enjoyable. It's a big holiday for Christians because it is the basis for our entire religion. Christ died on good Friday (this past Friday), and by doing so washed our sins away by taking them upon himself. On Sunday he rose again and conquered death; not just for Himself, but for all who believe in Him.

|

Friday, April 14, 2006

A New Member of the Blogroll

After having a nice spirited discussion with James at "Letters from the Sanitarium" regarding truth and God, I've decided to add him to my blogroll. From those who have read my blog from the beginning (which is, like, 2 people myself included), I mentioned that I wouldn't link to stupid liberal sites with absolutely no substance. Well, I'm linking to a not-so stupid liberal site. While I do disagree with him, he knows why he believes what he believes, and is willing to forego the "la la la, can't hear you" defense so many liberals are apt to use, and actually engage in debate. So welcome to my blog James! Such as it is.

|

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Victor Hanson Questions His Safety

Victor Hanson, that master of words and history, points out the absurdities of how the media is reporting on Iraq by using his own state as a counter example.

So is California comparable to Iraq? Hardly. Yet it could easily be sketched by a reporter intent on doing so as a bank rupt, crime-ridden den with murderous highways, tens of thousands of inmates, with wide-open borders.

He does make an interesting case. Though I've never been to the northern part of the state (which seems like a state itself when talking to those who have been), I've always had a characterization of California as a horrid place full of dirty people, dirty towns, and dirty minds. Alcatraz was cool though--I'm not sure if it's a coincidence that the only cool part was an island. There is certainly a lot to get done in Iraq, but don't think it's in shambles just because that's all the media wants you to hear.

|

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

On Invasion

Has anybody else noticed the type of coverage this pro-open borders protest has received by the MSM? Two things that have been glaring for me are the characterizations that these people are pro-immigration and implying that those they are protesting against are anti-immigration. In addition, the pictures put out depicting this group as Americans. Not to mention this idea that not all are criminals.

First off, they are not Americans. They are Mexicans who are in America illegally. If they are in love with this country so much, they need to be working to get legal status. As it stands, they are all criminals and have no business here. I see this as a blatant security issue, and as such should be dealt with accordingly: build a wall and patrol it with the national guard. Also, people opposed to this group are not anti-immigration, they're anti-illegal immigration. It's a very distinct difference.

Second, they see anyone opposed to them as "anti-foreigners." The issue here is the legality of these people's being here and the security threat they pose. Considering they care nothing for our laws or sovereignty, why should we be accomodating them? Again, I'm all for immigrants who come here legally and respect this country for the land of opportunity that it is, but those who would come here for the benefits of this country demanding we keep them from having any responsibilities, can go back to Mexico. The pictures the MSM show regarding this are in stark contrast to other pictures I would imagine are far more prevalent (See: Michelle Malkin).

I wonder when illegal immigrants thought they could have any kind of say in our political/legal process when their being here is a blatant disregard for both? In addition to keeping potential illegals (as well as terrorrists trying to get into the country) at bay in Mexico with a wall, we should be putting pressure on our businesses to refuse hiring any illegal immigrants. In other words, make the cost of hiring an illegal immigrant so high, that the business owner would not be willing to take such a chance (say, a mandatory 5 year sentence per infraction and seisure of all company property to be auctioned off). Not only does this give the people in Mexico nothing to come for, it shuts doors for those who are already here and encourages them to either become legal, or move back to Mexico.

Make no mistake--this issue needs to be dealt with, and dealt with strongly.

|

Tolerance of the Intolerant

So there is a discussion of intolerance of gays among Christians at James' blog: "Letters from the Sanitarium," which I found while playing around the internet. I find he seems to be intolerant of the viewpoints of those Christians who judge others. Not to say that those people's views are right, but tolerance for all means tolerance for all... which would include the intolerant. This just shows the problem when a person thinks all views are equally valid. You can't criticize such viewpoints (intolerant ones, that is) without becoming a hypocrite. I especially enjoyed this line:

The scary thing too is that I live in a part of Colorado that isn't far from Laramie, Wyoming. A city where the infamous beating and killing of gay student Matthew Shepard from the University of Wyo. took place.

Using Laramie as a reason to "be scared" is not really valid. In fact, I have not been to a more accepting or open place towards gays. Maybe the time I went to San Francisco for vacation, but even then, I didn't see much gay activity. Granted there are those who don't like homosexuality, but I have yet to find a person who hates gay people for being gay. Also, the Matthew Shepard thing was a drug deal gone bad which was turned into a straight-on-gay hate crime by the media (and Fred Phelps). Not only that, but his death sparked a weeklong symposium each year called the "Shepard Symposium on Social Justice." Which I believe is sponsored by the University. So trust me James, you have nothing to fear from us sheep herders! :)

One more thing: "Brokeback Mountain" was perhaps "groundbreaking" as James says, but its content promoted immorality. Forgetting the gay thing for a moment, it still advocated hedonism and "doing what feels good" over fidelity and devotion to family. How fair was it to the wives having to play second fiddle to their husband's other lover? Is that devotion?

|

They Get More Creative

A couple in Iowa filed an obituary on their own son in order to get a day off from work. The punchline is that their zombie son was spotted a few days later at a restaurant by people who know the family. I guess they figured simply calling in sick themselves wasn't enough... after all, everyone does that ("what is this world coming to?!")and who would believe them when so many people lie about that sort of thing?

It just goes to show that the human mind will find a solution to any problem regardless of the constraints. At least they didn't try to kill their son in order to keep it "legal." I guess this is what you call a "victimless crime," but now the paper has to print a retraction meaning less space for legitimate news/obits, or ad space cutting into their bottom line. Also, people who bought things for the mourning family are out whatever they spent. Not to mention making light of an obviously serious matter. I'm not saying throw the book at these people, but the state is definitely right in charging them with a crime.

|

Monday, April 10, 2006

Case Closed

Captain's quarters did a little independent research into a letter that has surfaced in Iraq. What it says is that Saddam was actively recruiting suicide bombers to attack not just Israel, but also the United States. His conclusion is that this is "case closed" on the whole "Bush lied, children died" argument. I tend to agree, though I was pretty much convinced when they found all the weapons he wasn't supposed to have after the invasion. The most notable of these weapons being the al Samoud II missles and the UAV prototypes. The UAVs being legal, but impossible to build without components forbidden to Saddam--so technically illegal.

I doubt this will have much impact on the people more concerned with hating Bush and America than caring about the truth behind Saddam's plans and the fact that invading Iraq was a move to strategically secure the United States in the GWOT.

|

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Koran Studies 2

So continuing my exploration into the peaceful nature of Islam, I found this part of the Koran that speaks of how you are to treat disbelievers with whom you have a contract. We will look at "The Immunity" 9:1-5.

[9.1] (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
[9.2] So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers.
[9.3] And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.
[9.4] Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

So, if you have a deal with a Muslim, and you're an idolater, watch your neck. Of course, that begs the question: what is an idolater in the eyes of a Muslim? Well since there really is no standard among Muslims as to how one should hold to the law in order to maintain a saved soul, it can vary widely.

In Christianity of course, all that is required is a genuine acceptance of Jesus as the sacrifice for our sins. Some say this is bad because it leaves the Christian open to do whatever they want. I won't go into that, just look up Romans 6 for the answer.

Also, I was watching an episode of Stargate SG-1 tonight and Ti'lk made a great point speaking about following false Gods. Basically he asked why should we believe in a benevolent god when that god betrays that very benevolence by destroying all those who refuse to believe in him? He made a great point. Muslims believe that Allah is the most beneficient, the most merciful, and yet ordains war, dismemberment, and execution of those who refuse to believe in him.

|

Friday, April 07, 2006

The New New Testament

Historians have found a new gospel that tells of Jesus' life--the gospel of Judas. What many are saying is that it will shake up the foundations of Christianity (for the millionth time). One thing is that it is further evidence that Christianity was not monolithic religion at its beginning. Of course, this is nothing new.

So why do I reject this particular work as illegitimate scripture? Two reasons; first, it contradicts the gospels of the New Testament, and second, it was written far long after Jesus died and shouldn't be considered a "witness" statement.

Why reject this work instead of the NT gospels? Because while we have only found this one manuscript of the gospel of Judas, we have thousands of manuscripts all agreeing. Should I accept both NT gospels and this to be true, then why would Judas hang himself after doing God's work?

As with the historical aspect of this document, it was written in 300 A.D. making it 200 years after Christ's death. This tells me that the document is not from a witness. If they find a manuscript from an earlier time I'll revisit this part of it, but it's bunk to me now.

Though theologically and historically this manuscript doesn't hold up as missing scripture, it can tell us more about the early church of Christianity and what it looked like. It's also a good way to learn more about our beliefs by seeing how people in the past believed. It seems to me that Christianity has come full-circle since that time. We went from an eclectic group of believers with their own methods of belief in Christ, to a single denomination (orthodox, later Catholicism) owning all aspects of the faith (sometimes with force), and now today we have the eclectic groups of believers again though mostly still under the "orthodox" banner.

|

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Allowing Beachheads

States around the country are allowing Islamic enclaves where Islamic laws would be enforced. This is a direct challenge to the rejection "separate but equal" doctrine tried with blacks and whites pre-60's. The problem I see is that these will be places where extremists will thrive and be able to use these places as staging areas to spread their hateful messages. I think this because of how "un-Islamic" Muslims in the middle east are. When Islamic law is given free reign, people end up getting beheaded and dismembered with few exceptions (i.e. Mauritania).

|

The RL Version of Blogging

Bloggers have become a new media source in the world and have contributed greatly to painting a more complete picture of what is going on in it. Now, NASA is awarding a contract to a student in British Columbia to build a miniature space elevator. It's a pretty cool concept: paying freelancers to do serious work. Too bad the project itself will fail.

|

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Koran Studies

I have (in the past) said that the difference between Christianity's followers doing violent acts and Islam's followers doing violent acts is in the respective scriptures. I maintain that the Bible quite clearly speaks against violence on others, and the Koran quite clearly speaks for violence against others.

In an effort to illustrate this, I've decided to cite various parts of the Koran to illustrate this point. I won't concentrate on the Bible so much as it will be assumed obvious that the Bible is indeed non-violent and that Christians have no religious justification to kill anyone. This is mainly because I would just be citing the same verses over and over again.

So to get things kicked off right, here is 5.33 speaking to the reward for those who fight for Allah.

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,


One thing I find interesting is when you google "Koran" plus a subject such as women or apostasy, you will get the arguments against Islam. When you google "Quran" plus a subject, you get argumetns for Islam. I don't have a point to this, I just thought that was interesting.

Anyway, regarding the quote, I find that as a Christian I maintain Mohammed was a false prophet and was not sent by God. Does this mean I'm waging war? I'm certainly striving to make mischief! I sincerely hope that I can turn people away from Islam and that they reject Mohammed as any kind of holy man. By this verse, I must have my hands and feet cut off or be imprisoned. Does that sound peaceful?

|

MOH Recipient Dies

The only conscientious objector to receive the Medal of Honor was buried in Arlington recently. Regardless of your politics, you have to admire this man's heroism. One problem I had was this quote at the end of the article.

“He wanted to serve. He just didn’t want to kill anybody,” said a veteran who attended the service, Fred Headrick, 85. “Most all of them (Medal of Honor recipients) received their medal for killing someone. He received his by saving lives.”

What I take issue with is that it really isn't the case. I would say most (if not all) MOH citations are given to people who saved lives by taking others. The reward isn't because they killed more than others--they get it because they saved others at the risk of their own life. Two people who come to mind are Rear Admiral James B. Stockdale, and George M. Cohan.

Granted, most people who get the Medal of Honor killed people, but it isn't because they killed people that they got it. It's because they embodied the American concept of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage when nobody could or would blame them for saving themselves or retreating.

Remember these people the next time you see the spineless protester or the anarcho-communist waving his or her black flag during a march, living under the very freedoms they wish to deny.

|

Monday, April 03, 2006

More on "Rahman Syndrome"

I've decided to call this compulsion for Muslims to persecute those who have converted away from Islam the Rahman syndrome. For one reason or another, these Muslims feel compelled to harass, imprison, torture, and kill, anyone who no longer believes Mohammad was a prophet. As Paul Marshall says: Rahman is just the tip of the iceberg. In the same way that Lou Gerheg became the poster child forALS, Abdul Rahman should be the poster child for Islamic persecution of converts.

Some other Muslim countries have laws similar to Afghanistan's. Apart from its other depredations, in the last ten years Saudi Arabia has executed people for the crimes of apostasy, heresy, and blasphemy. The death penalty for apostates is also in the legal code in Iran, Sudan, Mauritania, and the Comoros Islands.

In the 1990s, the Islamic Republic of Iran used death squads against converts, including major Protestant leaders, and the situation is worsening under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The regime is currently engaged in a systematic campaign to track down and reconvert or kill those who have changed their religion from Islam.


I'm not sure why (probably because Mohammed was just an illiterate, brutish hate-filled person), but this sort of thing IS supported in the Koran. Some would point out that the Bible has similar violent passages and Christians can be just as justified with their book to do harm on people as Muslims are with the Koran. I soundly reject this because the whole message of the New Testament is one of forgiveness and peace. Also, such statements betray the intellect of the ones making them. Lacking any understanding of what is actually going on, people can easily think that God is just a "kid with an ant farm." When reading the contexts of each item cited, though, we see these events as lessons to be learned. When comparing to what Jesus taught, he says the only ones eligible to enact violence on the unrighteous are the righteous. Since nobody is righteous (no, not one), the conclusion is that none of us has the authority to do these things, but God. I don't think you get the same thing with the Koran.

In fact, the Koran is pretty specific in spelling out that its adherents should kill and enact violence on some people. The Bible (as a whole) says "don't kill" while the Koran says "don't kill innocent people." The difference is slight, but has major implications. To a Muslim, a person who has any association with a country or group they personally consider "not innocent" is de facto not innocent themselves. This is where terrorists get their religious justification for violence. Really, it holds to the Koran better than what the "moderate" muslims (whom I consider apostates to their faith) believe.

One article I found regarding this is by a man named Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi.

Islam does not allow or sanctify the killing any innocent person regardless of his or her religion. According to the Qur'an and Hadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammad) life is sacrosanct.

We read in the Qur'an: ". . . Do not take life, which Allah has made sacred, except through justice and the law. He orders this so that you may acquire wisdom" (6:151) and, "Do not take life, which Allah has made sacred, except for a just cause. If anyone is killed unjustly, We allow his heir (to seek justice) but do not allow him to exceed bounds when it comes to taking life, for he is helped (by the law)" (17:33). According to the Qur'an, killing a person unjustly is the same as killing all of humanity, and saving a person is the same as saving all humanity. (See 5:32.)

His argument is "Islam doesn't advocate any violence." What is interesting is that the Koran actually does. It doesn't advocate violence against "innocent" people. There are obvious qualifiers about who can and cannot be killed. In Women 4:89, we see part of "the law" about which these cited verses are talking. To me, this is violence. My Muslim friend told me this verse regards people who are Muslims by day and Jews by night (for example)--people who really don't care about God anyway and do it more for social purposes. I still maintain violence in any form is not a staple of a loving and forgiving God though, and that Islam is still a violent religion.

|