Monday, October 19, 2009

Obama Vs. Fox News

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle



Today Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, Leader of the Free World and Champion of Free Speech declared War on Fox News Channel.

Using his Kapos, he has attempted a Blitzkrieg upon the Network.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."

"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."
While the other News Networks Propaganda Mills are rallying around the President, his Healthcare proposals, and denigrating the protesters on 9/12 as a bunch of kooks and racists, Fox News has been hitting hard on Obama's czars, his foreign policy, his economic policy, his Healthcare proposal, and the general lies and deceits Barack Hussein Obama has brought to Washington.

Looking at the lead stories from the other networks it is no wonder that Obama wants Fox News to start looking like them. Instead of examining the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Healthcare, and the situation in Iran, viewers at CNN and other media outlets (to call them news channels would be erroneous) subject their viewers to Sexy Michael Buble jokes, bed-wetting, and Balloon Boy. Not exactly the hard-hitting stories. More like fluff for the masses.

Or the example of distinguished journalism by such reporters ink slingers like Rick Sanchez.
Mr. Sanchez once wrote:

Sanchez generated controversy on Twitter when he wrote in his account, "do u know how much money i’d make if i’d sold out as hispanic and worked at fox news, r u kidding, one problem, looking in mirror."

In response, Fox News anchor Julie Banderas wrote on Twitter, "As a wise Latina woman, I have no comment other than to say...if I were Rick Sanchez, I wouldn't look in the mirror, period."

A Fox News spokesman also responded with, "Everyone knows that Rick is an industry joke, he shows that he's a hack everyday. And he doesn't have to worry about working at FOX because we only hire talent who have the ability to generate ratings."
Rick Sanchez, Politically Correct Hack, pushes the pro-Obama agenda, flunked his course in objectivity at college, is openly anti-Semitic (he supports La Voz de Aztlan openly including their full anti-Semitic rhetoric), and is vying for the Joseph Goebbels award for Excellence in Journalism. Is it any wonder that a Conservative like Lou Dobbs (the only Conservative on the staff) is leaving CNN (Hostile work environment?).

The last President who declared war on the media was Richard Nixon. He declared war on the Washington Post and New York Times. Look what happened to him. A fair warning to any President with skeletons in his closet.

President Obama thinks the heat is on now, just wait a bit. Think of what the heat will be like if and when Fox News start to investigate his private finances (Deep Throat did tell Woodward and Burnstein to "Follow the money.").

Nixon's approval ratings were very high when the Washington Post started to investigate Watergate. Obama doesn't have that luxury any more. Even Saturday Night Live and Late Night Comics are taking potshots at him:

SNL Obama Do Nothing Skit 10 3 09



View at YouTube.

The honeymoon is over President Obama. You better grow a thick coat, the satire and criticism is just going to get worse.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Re-Name the Washington Redskins Contest

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


Yes, folks, with this latest loss, it is time to re-name Washington's pitiful football team. As you know, the team has been named the Redskins for many moons now-going back to when they were in Boston. (Yes, they were in Boston once.) However, the name is not politically correct, and pressure has been building for years to change the name and team logo. In my previous post, I suggested the name "All-Stars", but obviously, that won't do. Perhaps something that symbolizes the city of Washington. I have some suggestions. With each suggestion, I will include a suitable picture which would go on their helmet and other equipment gear as their official team logo. The first suggestion that gets 3 votes wins. Here we go.

1 The Washington Porkers

Either this....




or this.


2 The Washington Stealers

Same pronunciation, different spelling, different meaning.


3 The Washington Elephants

Silly me. There are no elephants in Washington.


4 The Washington Donkeys

Perhaps a bit ubiquitous. Everywhere you look, you see donkeys.


5 The Washington Obamas

Strange name, but the logo is great. Hell, it elected a US president!


6 The Washington Staffers

Who else can get tickets to the games?


7 We could bring back the Washington Generals.




8 How about we bring back the Washington Senators?

Looks scarier than the Raiders' logo, if you ask me.



Or we could just sell the team to Rush Limbaugh and let him re-name the team.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

La Voz de Aztlan Weighs in on Viva Palestina

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk

The controversy over the Viva Palestina fund drive at UC Irvine on May 21 has started to attract the attention of the news media now that the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has written letters to the Dept. of Justice and UCI requesting an investigation into whether laws were broken. One "news outlet" that has written on the issue is an outfit called "La Voz de Aztlan" (The Voice of Aztlan) in Los Angeles ("Alta", California. (Aztlan is the mythical term for the American Southwest that some activists claim should revert to Mexico. "Alta" -Upper- appears to be a play on Baja California)

I have already written extensively on the issue, so I won't repeat what I have already stated. I would, however, like to post one of the articles published by Voz de Aztlan on October 6. Here it is:

http://www.aztlan.net/zoa_targets_muslim_students.htm

Let's put the overall Israel/Palestinian issue to the side for a moment. Here is the part of that article that I find really troubling:

"....The ZOA is headquartered in New York City and is funded by Wall Street tycoons, bankers and other wealthy Jews. Though they say they are Americans, they work exclusively for the foreign government of Israel."

If you are starting to detect an anti-Semitic taint, try on this other article from Voz de Aztlan:

http://www.aztlan.net/koshernostra.htm

Or this:

http://www.aztlan.net/metzitzah_b_peh.htm


These are just samplings from what the reader can expect to find on the Voz de Aztlan website covering a wide range of issues from the extreme left perspective. This so-called "news outlet" has jumped on the anti-Israel bandwagon, and by their own claim, sent a reporter with the Viva Palestina USA "aid" convoy to Gaza. That they support the Palestinian cause doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that they give away the anti-Jewish sentiment that supporters of Viva Palestina claim they don't have. I ask the writers and editors of Voz de Aztlan how they would react against those that would use anti-Hispanic rhetoric such as they use against Jews. It is a wasted rhetorical question because this website, the more you look at it, is nothing more than Der Stuermer in English.

Behind all the rhetoric behind the Palestinian/Israel dispute and Viva Palestina, it is pretty clear that there are things going on behind the scenes that demand some in-depth investigation. Who are the real forces behind Viva Palestina and the Muslim Student Associations in the US? Where does the funding come from and where does it all go? And if our Justice Department is really interested in fighting against hate groups, maybe they should take a look at Voz de Aztlan.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Orange County Register on Viva Palestina and George Galloway

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



George Galloway (in red)
"Street-corner Cromwell"

Today, the Orange County Register published an article in their local section about the on-going controversy over George Galloway's May 21 appearance at UC-Irvine, in which funds were collected for Viva Palestina.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
UCI investigating if money from event went to Hamas

By SEAN EMERY
2009-10-15 00:00:00

IRVINE UC Irvine is investigating whether a Muslim Student Union-sponsored speech by controversial British politician George Galloway was improperly used as a fundraiser, and have forwarded to the Justice Department allegations that money raised at the event went to a terrorist organization.

The university is looking into whether money was collected at the May 21 event for Galloway's Viva Palestina organization, despite the Muslim Student Union at UCI filling out a form promising that it wouldn't be a fundraiser. More serious allegations that Viva Palestina gave the money to Hamas during a trip to Gaza have been forwarded to the Department of Justice, UCI spokeswoman Cathy Lawhon said.

Muslim Student Union leaders acknowledged in a written statement that they might have mistakenly and unknowingly breached university policy, but contended that the complaint filed by the Zionist Organization of America was part of a larger effort to intimidate UCI's Muslim community and challenge their freedom of speech.

FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller acknowledged that a complaint letter was sent to the Department of Justice, but said it would be inappropriate for them to comment at this time.

Galloway has received international attention for his outspoken opposition to the Iraq war, and his campaign in favor of the Palestinians.

Critics, including the Zionist Organization of America, allege that Galloway's actions have aided terrorist organizations.

This isn't the first time the Zionist Organization of America has forced a review at UC Irvine. Several years ago, a federal civil rights investigation into the group's allegations found insufficient evidence that the university had failed to respond properly to complaints of harassment of Jewish students.

Tensions between Jews and Muslims – particularly over Israeli-Palestinian issues – have spilled over to the blogosphere. Jewish student leaders last year issued a release saying that no one is in danger from anti-Semitism on campus.

Muslim Student Union leaders wrote in their letter to UCI staff that attacks by the Zionist Organization of America were a smear on their reputation, and were creating a hostile environment for Muslim students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fousesquawk comment: It's about time. Where have you been, OC Register?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is the letter from the Muslim Student Union to UCI:

October 13, 2009
Diane Fields Geocaris, Esq.
Chief Campus Counsel
University of California, Irvine
The Chancellor’s Office
Irvine, CA 92697-1900

Dear Ms. Geocaris,

We have been recently informed that the Zionist Organization of America (“ZOA”), an external organization with no registered connections to UCI or its student population, has filed yet another defamatory complaint against the Muslim Student Union (“MSU”) at UCI. Not only was this complaint sent to yourself and a number of other religious leaders and policy-makers, but it was also widely publicized on ZOA’s website and has been subsequently published on a number of affiliated organizational websites and blogs.

In the past, the MSU at UCI has practiced moral restraint, seeking to take the high ground by ignoring ZOA and its allied affiliates’ hateful and malicious attacks. Yet, we at the MSU, are becoming increasingly concerned and alarmed at the never-ending intolerable and potentially illegal tactics used by ZOA and its affiliates, including among others, the OC Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism, Stand with Us, and the Anti Defamation League amongst others. These continual attacks have exacerbated the hostile environment against Muslim students and put to question the real intent behind ZOA and affiliates’ perpetual requests for investigations and calls for sanctions. ZOA and affiliates’ targeted attacks against the MSU indicate nothing more than a bad faith intent at denying MSU their constitutional First Amendment rights of speech, religion, and association.

ZOA and affiliates’ attacks of MSU are nothing new. Over the years, ZOA and affiliated organizations have continually lodged complaints against the MSU for our events, including most prominently, our Palestine Awareness Week. ZOA and affiliates have often chastised UCI for allowing us to bring speakers who allegedly espouse anti-Semitic rhetoric. Yet such assertions were found false after a year-long investigation by the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which stated in its letter to the Chancellor Michael Drake, “the speeches, articles, marches, symbols and other events at issue were not based on the national origin of the Jewish students, but rather based on opposition to the policies of Israel.” By recklessly conflating political critique of a nation-state (Israel) – which possesses the fourth largest military and nuclear armament and has engaged in a widely-documented history of persecution against a minority Palestinian indigenous population – with hostility against those of the Jewish faith, ZOA and its affiliates seek to deprive MSU of our constitutional rights; nothing less than our freedom of speech. At best, ZOA and affiliates’ accusations and demands for investigation would constitute grounds for malicious prosecution in a court of law. At worst, ZOA’s continual attempts to forcibly silence MSU by falsely categorizing political critique as hate speech against Jews smacks of fascism.

Yet ZOA and affiliated organizations have also sought to deprive members of the MSU from their religious freedom, by similarly and even comically lodging anti-Semitic complaints against Muslims who wore graduation stoles containing nothing more than Islamic script written in Arabic. Rather than verify that the stoles simply stated the shahada (the Islamic creed) and a prayer asking God for increased knowledge, anti-Semitic complaints were immediately lodged, detailing that the stoles incited terrorism against Jews and Israel. While seemingly laughable, such actions make clear that the ZOA and affiliated organizations seek to deny the MSU of its freedom of religion and of association, in addition to its freedom of speech. You yourself, Ms. Geocaris, have come to similar conclusions when you stated in a letter dated February 3, 2006, that some outside organizations such as the Zionist Organization of America have demanded upon UCI that it “silence just one side of the dialogue: the Muslim side.”

As of late, ZOA has continued its oppressive tactics against the MSU despite having the Department of Education, the UCI Administration, and even Jewish student organizations, including Hillel, call its bluff. In its most recent defamatory letter to the UCI general counsel, ZOA accused MSU of “maybe” providing material support, but if nothing else, of violating university technicalities. Such accusations were blasted over the internet and sent to numerous individuals including the California State Governor and a U.S. Congressman. To say the least, ZOA’s accusations against MSU constitute nothing short of libel. ZOA seeks to smear MSU’s reputation by maliciously accusing MSU of breaking U.S. laws without providing any real evidentiary backing. Then, almost as an afterthought upon realizing the absurdity of its first accusation, the ZOA seeks to chastise the MSU for breaching university policy, a policy that even UCI administrators overlooked.

While the MSU does not deny that it might have historically made mistakes and unknowingly breached university policy (as undoubtedly have every student organization on campus as well as university administrators), the reality is that ZOA’s complaint is not about rectifying MSU’s wrong, but rather it is about what it has always been about: censorship, defamation, and malicious prosecution. As an external non-UCI organization, ZOA is acting as a vigilante group, constantly defaming the MSU in its efforts to silence and shut down MSU. While ZOA and its affiliates succeeded in instigating a U.S. Department of Education investigation against UCI, due primarily to accusations that MSU was engaging in anti-Semitic rhetoric and actions, the Department of Education dismissed the investigation in November 2007, concluding that there was “insufficient evidence” to support ZOA and affiliates’ allegations. How much longer will ZOA and its affiliates continue to cry wolf at the expense of the MSU and its memberships’ constitutional rights and protections?

Unfortunately, the untold reality is that ZOA and affiliates’ defamatory press releases, letters, and statements have actually created a hostile environment for Muslim students at UCI. MSU receives hate mail on a regular basis by individuals who threaten MSU members with hate, violence, and even death. One such email recently received stated, “Get off of our campuses and get out of America you anti-semitic heathens.” This email was immediately forwarded to the Dean of Students. Another email stated, “You represent the new Nazis. Zeig heil you son-of-a-b**ch.” At MSU events, it is not uncommon for audience members to shout out “camel jockeys” and even “sand n***ers.”

In the post 9-11 world with the upsurge of “Islamophobia,” Muslims have become the most discriminated religious group in the nation.[1] Where individuals such as Daniel Pipes, the man who coined the term “Islamo-fascism” and built his career on preaching hate against Muslims and Islam, and Ann Coulter, the woman who unequivocally stated “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity,” are common occurrences at university campuses, including UCI, the MSU deeply sympathizes with individuals who are victimized based on their religion, ethnicity, or race. Yet we at the MSU will not tolerate increased discrimination and its consequential chilling effects as a result of ZOA and affiliates’ defamatory and libelous accusations, which seek nothing more than MSU’s censorship and eradication.

First Amendment rights should be especially cherished and protected and we at the MSU will do everything in our power to ensure that our rights are not trampled upon by external vigilante organizations. We hope that UCI, the UC Regents, the California State Assembly, and the U.S. government support us in protecting our First Amendment rights against those who engage in malicious prosecution and vindictive accusations. While ZOA and affiliates have historically had a carte blanche in defaming and smearing MSU, we at the MSU demand an end to ZOA’s illegal attacks and will be consulting with university administrators and external entities to best advise us on a proper recourse. It is with our growing concern that we request that the UCI Administration begin to investigate how best to protect the legal rights of its organizations and students from the chilling effects of vigilante external organizations such as the ZOA which continually harass and plant the seeds of hate and discord on campus. Enough is enough.

With great appreciation,

Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fousesquawk comment:

"While ZOA and affiliates have historically had a carte blanche in defaming and smearing MSU, we at the MSU demand an end to ZOA’s illegal attacks and will be consulting with university administrators and external entities to best advise us on a proper recourse. It is with our growing concern that we request that the UCI Administration begin to investigate how best to protect the legal rights of its organizations and students from the chilling effects of vigilante external organizations such as the ZOA which continually harass and plant the seeds of hate and discord on campus."

The Zionist Organization of America is hardly a vigilante organization. Vigilante organizations do not request the appropriate law enforcement agencies to investigate possible violations of law. They take the law into their own hands. What the ZOA did was to ask the Justice Deprtament to investigate the event that took place at UCI on May 21 to determine if US laws had been violated by collecting funds that went to Hamas-a US designated terrorist organization.

ZOA has no interest in harrassing MSU or planying the "seeds of hate and discord" on the UCI cxampus. What ZOA has objected to is the stream of MSU-sponsored events and speakers that have exhibited anti-semitism-an accusation that I concur with.

"ZOA seeks to smear MSU’s reputation by maliciously accusing MSU of breaking U.S. laws without providing any real evidentiary backing."

If, in fact, US laws were breached by George Galloway and MSU on May 21, 2009, then there is plenty of evidence to show that funds were indeed collected at the behest of Galloway. What evidence, you ask? Tons of videotapes and eye-witness testimony since approximately 800 people were present. Of course, most of those 800 people are not anxious to testify, but a few dozen are-including myself.

"In the past, the MSU at UCI has practiced moral restraint...."

Yes, like inviting speakers to campus like Amir Abdel Malik Ali, who praise suicide bombers and advocate killing of "Zionist" Jews. Or people like Mohammed al-Asi, who stated at UCI, "Jews are low-life ghetto-dwellers." and "you can take a Jew out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of a Jew".

I could go on and on about the MSU's "woe is us" letter to UCI. After years of putting on radical speakers on the UCI campus who not only hate Israel, but hate America and Jews as well, the MSU is cloaking itself in victim's clothing as they do when anyone has the cojones to stand up and call their message what it is- a message of hate. The fact of the matter is that the appropraite letters have been sent to the appropriate authorities. Now it is up to them to determine if US laws and campus rules have been breached by the MSU and their pathetic "steet-corner Cromwell" (as he has been appropriately labeled in Canada) George Galloway.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

For the Staff of Anna Jaques Hospital


Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, my faith and my gratitude sustain me. Gratitude for the rich, full life I have been given, and now, at the end of the day, grateful to that small intrepid band of champions and guardians, the caregivers, the nurses and the doctors who work tirelessly through the long nights to stave off the cold winds that threaten to extinguish my little flame.

I am in their hands.
And we are in God's hands.
And I am safe.
Roger W. Gardner
3 West
October 2, 2009

Monday, October 12, 2009

On Religion



Roger W. Gardner

My Personal Beliefs

I believe in a Higher Power whom, for lack of a better name, I call God. My belief in God is both intuitive and pragmatic. Intuitive in the sense of its feeling right and proper, like a beautiful equation, while the alternative option seems to me awkward and incomplete.

I believe in a God engaged in human affairs. I do not believe God helps me find a parking space. However, I believe that the only convincing explanation for certain epiphanies in my life have come from this higher source.

My belief in God is also pragmatic; I believe in the logic of a Prime Mover, and in the efficacy of prayer. I believe that prayer -- that is, the act of praying itself, humbling oneself before a superior power and asking for help, is beneficial both intellectually and spiritually. It is a sharing of the burden of mortality, and offers us a vestige of hope.

The Historiocity of Jesus Christ

I believe that Jesus of Nazereth, called the Christ, existed. I believe this fact has been adequately confirmed by historical triangulation from the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Dio Cassius -- special weight being given to Tacitus' offhand references, given their derisive and demeaning tone.

I believe in the essential factual elements of the Gospel of the New Testament, from the approximate date (though off by 4 to 6 years) of Christ's birth, through his last 2 or 3 years, up to and including his crucification.

I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, the miracle of the loaves, walking on water, etc, or, most importantly, in the Ressurection; all of which I consider to be later constructs in an elaborate process of deification.

However, despite heavy censorship which most assuredy took place in the 4th and 5th centuries, I believe that in general the extant records of Jesus' teachings and sayings are essentially accurate, and certainly worthy of the founding of a great religion. It is in this sense that I consider myself to be a Christian.

There were, it must be remembered, many purported Messiahs during this period of Judaic history. This Jewish longing for a strong Messiah Warrior King (such as King David) came as a natural response to their having been conquered and subjugated, in turn, by the Babylonians, the Persians, the Egyptians, and now the Romans. In this respect, Jesus the Nazarene proved to be a disappointment to many Jews -- in particular to Judas Iscariot. Rather than being given a Messiah Warrior King, who would lead them to victory in battle against their hated Roman foe, they were presented with a man of tolerance and peace. A gentle man, who believed himself to be the Son of God -- not the jealous, vengeful God of the Old Testament, but a kind and loving God.

Five centuries after Jesus' death the Arab world would get their own Messiah Warrior King, and we are still dealing with the unhappy consequences of that fateful event.

Unlike the fire and brimstone prophets of the Old Testament, Jesus only sparingly deals with sin, never the dark concept of Original Sin; but rather he openly embraces the prostitute, the Roman Centurian, even the onerous tax-collector.

I believe that Jesus, called the Christ, believed himself to be the Son of God, and that those surrounding him believed the same. I believe the actual degree of Christ's divinity is unknowable, whereas his effect on mankind is vast and quantifiable.

If faith is belief without proof, then my faith in the historiosity of the New Testament is qualified. The character of Jesus is, to me, the most intriguing and mysterious in history. His life and his teachings have forever changed the course of the Western World.

Although Jesus most assuredly represented an existential threat to the conservative Jewish religious establishment of Jerusalem, most particularly the Elders of the Sanhedrin, it appears the Romans had the final say in his execution for sedition. It was therefore a civil/political decision, well within the bounds of Roman jurisdiction, and thus, despite centuries of traditional anti-semitic rantings, does not constitute a "Blood Libel" on the Jews.

The Importance of Saint Paul

Although obviously centered on the figure of Jesus Christ, in fact it seems that the entire foundation of the Universal Catholic Church rests squarely on the solid shoulders of the inimitable Saul of Tarsus (Saint Paul). Indeed, it can be said with some degree of certainty that without the efforts of Saint Paul, Christianity would most likely have eventually dwindled away, becoming just another strange Middle Eastern cult. Regardless of the significant contributions of Saint Jerome, Saint Augustine, et al, it was Saint Paul who was primarily responsible for the birth of the Christian Church, An indefatiguigable proselytizer and a profoundly original theologian -- he was not, however, above bending the rules (e.g. that all Christians must be converted Jews), if this would bring in new Christians from the vast untapped resources of the gentile Graeco-Roman world. It was the formidable brain of Paul that first formulated the whole concept of Redemption -- that Christ had died on the cross not as a common criminal, but in order to redeem our sins, thus turning his inglorious end by crucifiction into a divine act of monumental martyrdom. The importance of Saint Paul to the course of Western/Christian history cannot be overstated. It was Saint Paul who organized the foundations of the Universal Church, created its dogma and its heirachy. By the time of Paul's death, in 64 AD, the nascent Catholic Church was already becoming a viable, well-structured corporation, subject to the personal and political aspirtions of it leaders.

The Jewish Christians

Meanwhile, in Jerusalem, the so-called "original Jewish-Christians", under the leadership of Jesus' brother, James the Just, continued on in stubborn isolation for a few decades before disappearing from the pages of history.

It is worth noting that these newly converted Christians sought to get along with the Roman authorities, and were eager to distance themselves from their troublesome Jewish cousins. As Christianity grew, this split between the Jewish-Christians, the gentile Christians, and the Jews became ever wider. This in part expains why the writers of the Gospels were reluctant to put the blame for Jesus' execution on the Romans, placing it intead on the Jews.

East vs. West

One of the most pivotal events in Western history must surely have been the now rather obscure Iconoclastic Controversy of the mid-8th century. For it was over this theological rift that the the Eastern [Orthodox] Church, centered in Constantinople began its inevitable split from the Western Catholic Church, centered on the Pope in Rome. The major bone of contention was over the interpretation of the use of "graven images", that is whether or not realistic portraiture depicting indentifiable characters -- most especially, God, Jesus Christ or the Virgin Mary -- constituted a heresy. Constantinople declared all such artwork to be heretical and banned its production, and the later Islamic World followed suit. On the other hand, the Church of Rome decided the contrary position, not only accepting naturalistic art as being non-heretical, but warmly embracing it, eventually becoming its primary benefactor.

The Middle Eastern and the Graeco-Roman Western world had gone their separate ways. In the West the arts and sciences flourished, and the spirit of discovery -- when not threatening the foundation of the church itself -- was nurtured and encouraged. Thus the successful growth of an open, liberal, progressive culture denoted the character of the West, while the Middle Eastern, later Islamic world, would focus their arts, however beautiful, exclusively on rigid, formulaic, mostly geometric motifs. Restricted by religious law, discovery and innovation were discouraged, in favor of strict adherence to tradition. While the West prospered and grew, albeit somewhat sporadically, the Middle East tended to stagnate and fall behind. As the West moved on, continually expanding its intellectual and artistic frontiers, culminating in the glories of the Rennaisance and, later, in the Age of Enlightenment, the Arab/Islamic world languished, virtually unchanged from the 7th century. No Rennaisance. No Reformation. No Age of Enlightenment -- the closest thing to a Reformation in Islam being, arguably, the 18th century Wahabbi Movement, which only succeeded in turning in on itself, further alienating Islam from the constantly evolving West, where innovation was not only encouraged, but generously rewarded.

Church and State

Perhaps the next most determinate events in Western Christian History were the beginnings in the 11h century of the ongoing battles between church and state, between the Pope in Rome and various emperors and kings. Although the results of these contests were never entirely conclusive, the end product would be a stalemate, and a tentative agreement on their separate spheres of authority, spiritual and temporal. This imperfect balance between church and state has generally served Western Civilization quite well.

However, problems develop when a religion, such as Islam, is overtly and aggressively politically motivated, but protected from objective scrutiny by its religious shield. Thus Islam can spread its evil tentacles into our Western society, its sanctity assured by our own Constitution. Unless and until we find a way around this self-imposed barrier and begin treating Islamism as just one more "ism", such as Communism of Fascism, we will continue losing ground in this veritable Clash of Civilizations.

Afterword

In contrast to the militant hubris of the confirmed atheist, or the condescending self-righteous fervor of the born-again-Christian, I humbly accept the fact that many of my carefully considered conclusions, put forth in this small essay, could be completely mistaken. However, they represent an honest expression of my thoughts at this time.

Finally, I believe that faith in a kind and loving God is a gift. The degree to which one accepts the literal narrative of the New Testament, whether one embraces minimalism or maximalism, is of course a matter of personal choice.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

So Now I'm a Terrorist?

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk

This is a quote for the ages. It comes from DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse in response to Republican criticism of our newest Nobel laureate (that would be Barack Obama).

“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,”.....



"Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party."

“The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it’s an embarrassing label to claim.”

Has this guy been smoking his socks?

As if Woodhouse wasn't enough, here comes "Old Reliable", Barbara Boxer, weighing in on the comparison between RNC Chairman Michael Steele and the Taliban:


(Even the MSNBC anchors were incredulous.)

I would point out to Mr Woodhouse and Senator Boxer that although I am no Republican, I am a patriotic American who thinks that Chicago has more important items on its agenda than lining the pockets of its corrupt officials by landing the Olympics. I also think that "hope", charisma and the ability to give a good speech do not add up to the kind of accomplishments that used to earn people Nobel prizes. (Of course, I am speaking of the era before Yassir Arafat, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.) The fact is that Barack Obama getting a Nobel Prize is nothing more than another Nobel Committee slap at George W Bush and is a joke. I also take note that the deadline for Nobel votes was two months after Obama entered office. (I guess that means that his famous "beer summit" could not be considered.)

"Peace (and beer) in our time"

That said, Mr Woodhouse and Senator Boxer, that hardly means I am taking up sides with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

What is there to take pride in in an American president receiving an award he clearly has done nothing to earn? Pride? What kind of pride did Cincinnati Reds fans feel in 1919 when their team won the World Series only because the Chicago "Black Sox" threw it?

Isn't it amazing how this Democratic Party goes about labeling its opponents in the most overblown terms?

Go to a tea party and we are redneck racists who don't want a black president in the White House.

Protest at a town hall meeting against government health care and we are Nazis.

Don't support Chicago for the Olympics and we are traitors on a scale of Jane Fonda in Hanoi.

And now, question what Obama has done to earn a Nobel Prize and we are the equivalent of the Taliban, Hamas and other terrorists.

How about this one, Mr Woodhouse: You remind me of Josef Goebbels. You don't like that comparison, do you? I didn't think so.