Denitown, Connecticut — Chip McKeown, president of the Atheist club at Connecticut’s College of Regional Accountant Practitioners (CRAP), has announced that the club will be disbanding at the close of this semester.

Professor Freewind Pulcinski (pictured) expressed his disappointment with the move. “It was, like, totally, you, know, juss… like bummed. Ya know, man?,” the professor told reporters on Monday.

The four members of the club all agreed to disband early last week. Said McKeown, “We kept getting together and asking each other what we were there to discuss. But every time the answer was the same: ‘Nothing.’” McKeown went on:

I mean, what’s the point of getting together not to believe? You know, we can do that back in our dorm rooms, right? Who needs rules and schedules, and meetings to talk about nothing? Like, what’s the point, ya know?”

Last year, 2nd year member Dawn Nada suggested that the club could get together to talk about what they would be doing if there was a God, but that seemed to close to accepting that there might be a God, so members voted that idea down.

“I was just trying to get past this whole problem of having nothing to talk about because we didn’t believe in anything,” Nada said Wednesday from her job at Starbucks.

The CRAP atheist club started two semesters ago after the CRAP anarchist club fell apart over disagreement on club rules. McKeown announced the exploratory phase of organizing a new club, the College Fatalists. An announcement was going to take place next week, but organizers are finding a lack of energy to attend organizing meetings. McKeown said that the executive council of the Fatalists club are having a hard time getting out of bed these days.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

“If the city requires this, we can’t do it,” Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. “The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem.”

Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city’s long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.

The clash escalates the dispute over the same-sex marriage proposal between the council and the archdiocese, which has generally stayed out of city politics.

Catholic Charities, the church’s social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington’s homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

“All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow,” Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.

The church’s influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as “somewhat childish.” Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city’s relationship with the church than give in to its demands.

“They don’t represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure,” said Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and the chairman of the Health Committee.

The standoff appears to be among the harshest between a government and a faith-based group over the rights of same-sex couples. Advocates for same-sex couples said they could not immediately think of other places where a same-sex marriage law had set off a break with a major faith-based provider of social services.

The council is expected to pass the same-sex marriage bill next month, but the measure continues to face strong opposition from a number of groups that are pushing for a referendum on the issue.

The archdiocese’s statement follows a vote Tuesday by the council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary to reject an amendment that would have allowed individuals, based on their religious beliefs, to decline to provide services for same-sex weddings.

How pathetic. D.C.’s stance is basically that the Catholic Church should abandon its principles if it wants to keep working with the city, because this is going to pass whether they like it or not, and they have to make this awful choice — but they, of course, are the bad guys. This is, of course, the liberal meme, because anyone who is against gay marriage is prejudiced and backward and wrong and might as well be the KKK. Check out this explanation from Feministing:

The closing of a major homeless shelter and budget cuts have worsened the situation in a city already struggling to serve its poor and homeless residents. As someone who organizes for access to abortion I have obvious problems with gaps in the services provided by Catholic Charities. But that does not discount the vital work they do for the 68,000 D.C. residents who rely on Catholic Charities for shelters, health care, and food programs.

The Archdiosese is making a clear statement: it considers keeping rights from same sex couples more important than the needs of this city’s most vulnerable. Their willingness to use the lives and health of 68,000 people in need as pawns in their fight for the right to discriminate is unconscionable. D.C. needs more social services, not less. I hope the Archdiosese can put aside the politics of hate for a moment to recognize what I would think they would consider a moral obligation to do vital life saving work.

With all due respect, this isn’t a choice the church can fairly make. They didn’t ask for this bill, and their input was completely ignored when it came to amendments in the bill. The passage of this bill puts Catholic Charities in the worst kind of situation. For the Catholic Church, this isn’t a political situation, which is what liberals want to make it into. For the Catholic Church, this is a religious issue, it’s a moral one. The church cannot just abandon its principles, and that’s what liberals are forcing the church to do. And if the church caves on this, it won’t stop here. Liberals will start putting the pressure on about abortion, and performing gay marriages, and who knows what else. Where will it stop? It’s disgusting that liberals are putting the blame on the church here, when they are the ones being forced between a rock and a hard place. The church is not the one using homeless people as pawns; the city is. And it is wrong for the government to be legislating religious beliefs, which is basically what has happened here. This is, at its core, a subtle attack on our rights to religious freedom. And apparently, there is no one who is going to stand up for religion in this case.

If this is the change you voted for, then I hope you’re happy.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

This is part two of my three part report on the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s one day conference on The Roots of American Order. So here is part two of mine titled Lift a Glass to the Past: America Rooted in Tradition or a New Covenant? (Part one can be seen here)

The second speaker of the day was Brad Birzer who regaled us on America’s Judeo-Christian History.

Bizer began his session by noting that historian Donald Lutz discovered that the founders used Christian references in their pre-war writing far more than any other source. St. Paul was the most referenced New Testament figure with Micah 4:4 being the most referenced Old Testament verse.

But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it.

On this Lutz quotation, though, I want to clarify something. Many have bandied about the claim that Donald Lutz said that 34 percent of the founder’s writing contain direct Biblical citations. This claim is not altogether true. On the other hand, it is not something to quickly dismiss as fans of the Enlightenment influence want to do, either.

The problem is that Lutz’ research didn’t reveal that this 34 percent came “directly” from Biblical citations. What Lutz found was that the Bible and quotes from sermons of the period added up to his finding of 34 percent. Lutz wasn’t saying the 34 percent was made up solely of Biblical quotations. It is a bit misleading to say that this large number of citations “came from the Bible” when a portion came from the sermons of famous preachers of the era — and political sermons at that. Granted sermons are generally of religious content, but a quote for a sermon isn’t the same thing as a direct citation from the Bible.

Add to this the fact that Lutz also found that the Federalist Papers and the debates about the Constitution contain very few Biblical citations and we get another shade of this debate that is necessary to consider. Many Atheists and Enlightenment influence fans claim that the lack of Biblical citations during this second period of the American founding proves that religion was meaningless. But I warn these deniers that Lutz was also not saying that the Bible was meaningless. In his study, after he notes that the Biblical influence seemed to disappear from the founder’s writing during the Constitutional phase, Lutz says it isn’t “surprising since the debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible has little to say.”

The fact is that this 34 percent of Protestant Religious citations isn’t meaningless. It still shows that a great preponderance of the founder’s citations were religiously based, and of the Protestant religion at that. It also shows that religious appeals formed a large part of the thinking of the founding era as they geared up both for war with Britain and the formation of the United States of America.

I sort of wish that Birzer had gone into this further, but I understand why he didn’t. He had a finite amount of time and this diversion would have moved away from his main point. In any case, both sides make at the same time too much and too little of Lutz’ study.

Birzer next noted that America was, indeed, a land of religious freedom even if its particular parts were “islands of intolerance.” He notes that the religious freedom that our early years are famous for did exist, but not in the laissez faire style we’d like to wish it were. Sure it was illegal to be a Catholic in Maryland after 1689, for instance, or one had to be an Anglican to hold office in Virginia but those particular restrictions were less extent in other parts of the country. Each segment had its particular religious sect as the officially recognized religion, but there wasn’t a single religion for all of the colonies leaving people free to choose where they might like to live in accordance with their individual principles.

The summation is that religion played a supremely important part in the early days from the first colonists to the founding era.

As an example Birzer notes that as laid out in his “On Conciliation With America,” Edmund Burke’s characterization of the American Colonies was that the colonies were born of English liberty and religion.

In this character of the Americans, a love of freedom is the predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole… This fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English Colonies probably than in any other people of the earth, and this from a great variety of powerful causes…

If anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the form of government, religion would have given it a complete effect. Religion, always a principle of energy, in this new people is no way worn out or impaired; and their mode of professing it is also one main cause of this free spirit. The people are Protestants; and of that kind which is the most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion. This is a persuasion not only favorable to liberty, but built upon it.

Birzer, though, also pointed out that a chief motivating factor in rallying Americans to the revolutionary cause was an anti-Catholicism that was inflamed by the Crown’s 1774 Quebec Act that gave an official Crown-recognized status to French Catholics in Canada. This fear of “Papism” led many Americans to fear for their liberties expecting a creeping Catholic tyranny to invade their colonies through the Crown’s apostasy.

Birzer notes, though, that in many ways the establishment of local rule in the colonies was a bloodless coup of sorts. He gives the example of Charles Carroll of Carrollton a Roman Catholic who led Marylanders to form an extra legal government that eventually simply took over the colony as the official government in the minds of the people. At some point, the poor Royal Governor had to just go home because he was simply ignored by the whole colony as they favored their fellows instead.

Of course, Carroll’s efforts led him to become a celebrated citizen despite his Catholic religion and this, in turn, broke down some of those religious barriers for Catholics, at least in Maryland.

Birzer really pressed the point, though, that the main reason that colonists feared Papism was because of the top-down leadership of the Church, a style that necessarily negated, as far as they were concerned, the liberties that the colonists valued above all else.

He summed up his talk by asking of us all a question. In some parts of the colonies, men were required by law to bring two things to church with them on a Sunday morning: Their Bible and their rifle. These men were ready to give their all to protect their liberties. But are we today still ready to reclaim what is ours? With all the world flexing its muscles, from North Korea, to China to Iran, are we as Americans ready to fight to reclaim our legacy of freedom or are we to roll over and allow an out-of-control, socialist government to usurp our liberties as enemies gather at our gates?

Next: More British Than the British!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Plus, Ron Reagan couples “tea baggers” with Murderer Nidal Hasan.

In 2008 The George Washington University Homeland Security Institute (HSPI) initiated a transition task force to help craft homeland security policies during Obama’s transition period. In May of 2009 HSPI finished its report titled, “Thinking Anew-Security Priorities for the Next Administration.” One of the members of this Obama transition project was none other than the Muslim murderer Nidal Hassan.

Nidal is listed in Appendix C, Page 29 of the HSPI report as having served as a “Task Force Event Participant,” in his position with the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine. (download .pdf of report) We should caution, though, that Hasan did not work for Obama. But he was a part of the University’s efforts to advise Obama.

The HSPI fashions itself a “think and do tank” and claims its mission as that of building “bridges between theory and practice to advance homeland security through an interdisciplinary approach.” I wonder if one of those bridges leads to “understanding” the mindset of terrorists like Hasan, a participant in George Washington University’s “think and do” mission?

There is also video of Hasan participating at the GWU event.

So what of Obama? Why he’s still trying to understand this “tragic shooting.” Hours after the murderous rampage concluded, Obama made some rather facile comments after his jaunty opening remarks to members of America’s “First Nations” consisting of a long list of special “shout outs” to participants there.

“I planned to make some broader remarks,” he told the crowd. “But as some of you might have heard there has been a tragic shooting at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas.”

“This morning I met with FBI Director Mueller and the relevant agencies to discuss their ongoing investigation into what caused one individual to turn his gun on fellow servicemen and women,” he said. “We don’t know all of the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all of the facts.

One word is all you need to know, Mr. President: Islam.

Obama isn’t the only one pretending that this incident is beyond understanding or akin to some sort of “tragedy” or horrible accident nor is he the only one pretending that Islam has no role in Hasan’s murderous crime. As Obama called this a “tragic shooting” many in the Old Media followed suit. Instead of characterizing this as what it truly is, a crime motivated by religious zealotry, many Old Media outlets tried to pretend that this was somehow a “tragedy,” a mere unfortunate accident that befell our troops, one with no obvious motivating factors.

The Chicago Tribune, for instance, characterized Hasan as a “disturbed single gunman” instead of an Islamiofascist. For the Trib, Zeenat Rahman tried her best to pretend that Islam had nothing at all to do with Hasan’s crimes.

Ignoring Hasan’s many examples of Islamic radicalism, The Dallas Morning News’ Jacquielynn Floyd forcefully scoffed at anyone claiming to know his motivations and warned against drawing conclusions, dismissing Hasan’s actions as “a special kind of crazy.”

And then there were the labeling of this incident as a mere “tragedy.”

The Minnesota Daily Editorial Board headlined one of its posts on the incident a “tragedy developing.” For Newsweek, Rabeika Messina worried about how we should address these situations before “tragedy strikes.” Even the Christian Science Monitor called the incident a “tragedy” that “unfolded Thursday.”

This sort of rhetoric is not merely imprecise it is a cover up of the truth. This was not tragic as if a mere accident. It was a murderous crime.

Yet even worse than all the above, renowned moron Ron Reagan, extremist left-wing talk show host, coupled the tax/healthcare protests being held by conservatives that day in Washington D.C. to an event that was “pure tragedy” (his words) at Fort Hood.

Apparently when Ron Reagan thinks of peaceable protests against a socialist government takeover of our healthcare system and other onerous taxation he thinks of mass shootings by Muslim extremists. I guess Reagan sees no difference between the two since one so easily invokes the other in his mind.

So we have the president and his friends in the Old Media mislabeling this as a tragedy even as they try as hard as possible to pretend that Islam had no role in the Hasan murders — one of them, Ron Reagan, feeling that tea party protesters are just the same as a Muslim mass murderer. No wonder the left is struggling to understand what went on here.

Am I saying that all Muslims are crazed murderers? Of course not and I add this as a postscript because hatemongers like Ron Reagan will immediately launch into such a charge against me. But to pretend that Islam is a mere accidental factoid in the Hasan incident is not just absurd, but criminally negligent on behalf of the president and his lackeys in the Old Media.Islam is integral to this criminal act. There is no other way to assess this incident.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

During Sunday’s episode, David, who created, wrote and produced “Seinfeld,” visits a bathroom in his assistant’s home and splatters urine on a picture of Jesus. Instead of wiping it off, David leaves the restroom. Minutes later, David’s assistant enters the bathroom and concludes that Jesus is crying. She then summons her mother to the bathroom, where both women kneel in prayer.

If a crucifix submerged in urine can be high art, why can’t urinating on portraits of Jesus be high comedy?

In lieu of an apology, HBO sneered:

Anyone who follows Curb Your Enthusiasm knows that the show is full of parody and satire. Larry David makes fun of everyone, most especially himself. The humor is always playful and certainly never malicious.

Now who would think this was malicious? Vicious, blasphemous, wicked, obviously — but malicious?

Contrast this with the obsequious treatment our liberal rulers have demanded we give Islam ever since 9/11. Despite the claim that David “makes fun of everyone,” you won’t see him peeing on a Koran.

On a tip from Wiggins. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

I believe that Christianity is the single best influence on mankind. It is responsible for Western civilization’s flourishing, it is responsible for the heights of freedom and liberty that untold billions of humans have enjoyed and will enjoy in the future. Certainly the bedrock of that success is the Christian Bible.

So, don’t go calling me a religion hater or a Christian basher. There. That is said.

Now, the story is that a “pastor” in North Carolina is having a book burning event for his fool followers and one of the books he is burning is any copy of the Bible that isn’t the King James version. Why burn any version of the Bible that isn’t a King James version? Why, donthca know it’s because the King James version is the only real Bible, the only one that God ordained… at least according to this ill-educated hick it is, anyway.

All the other editions of the Bible are heretical as far as Marc Grizzard is concerned. All the other editions are “satanic” and are “perversions” of God’s word, says this towering ignoramus.

I believe the King James version is God’s preserved, inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God… for English-speaking people.

Does this nitwit have any clue when the King James version was created? It was begun in 1604 in post-Elizabethian England as the reign of James the First began.

Let’s review… Jesus died somewhere around 33 AD. He was crucified by a Roman official named Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Judea. Yes, that death occurred in the Middle East. And yes the Roman Empire was still around.

The King James Bible was created in 1604 (hundreds and hundreds of years later, by the way) in a country called England which hadn’t even been dreamed of when Christ died. The Roman Empire was basically long gone by that time.

So, HOW in God’s name can the King James Bible be the sole word of God if it was written by a people that didn’t speak Jesus’ language, were separated by hundreds and hundreds of years, and in a country that didn’t even exist during Jesus’ time?

Now, there is no possible way that one can say that the King James Bible could possibly be the direct word of God. No way at all. I certainly have nothing against this version of the Bible, it was the version I grew up with, of course. But it is just plain stupid to say this Bible and only this Bible is the “word of God” when the original writers of the various parts of the Bible didn’t speak an English language that didn’t exist in their day. It is an idiotic premise to imagine that the KJ Bible is the direct word of God.

Any half trained scholar of the Bible era can see numerous errors in translation in the King James version. The technical problems with the KJ Bible aren’t monstrous, nor entirely discounting, but they are there nonetheless. There are errors. And errors means it isn’t the “inerrant” word of God.

In fact, the Bible has been rewritten so many times that there is no “official” version anymore — if there ever was one. There is no existing version of the Bible that is the original word of God. Christians cannot hold the Bible as the actual word of God and can only assume it to be the inspired works containing “inerrant” sentiment, prescient parables, and God’s guiding philosophy. But it is not the actual word of God.

Read the King James exclusively if you like. But only a halfwit would say that the King James is the actual word of God when the words Jesus spoke were so far removed in time, place, history and language that the King James Bible was conceived in.

Are all versions of the Bible equal, are they all the same? Clearly not. I am not arguing that the KJ version is no good, nor am I arguing that any others are superior. I am merely saying that the KJ Bible simply cannot be the actual works of God. Related, yes. Inspired, certainly. Important, surely. Historically significant, undeniably. But the actual word of God? No way.

This North Carolina “pastor” is an uneducated charlatan. I feel sorry for the people he is misleading.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

It has been used to excuse the chopping off of hands and feet, it has been used as an excuse to stone women that have been victims of rape, and it has been used as an excuse to jail women merely for wearing a pair of pants, driving a car, or smoking a cigarette, but Barack Obama’s Muslim advisor told a British TV audience that Shariah Law has just been “misunderstood.”

Obama Muslim affairs advisor Dalia Mogahed (pictured) was a guest on a London-based TV show hosted by a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahir al-Islami party (Islamic Party of Liberation), Ibtihal Bsis.

Hizb ut Tahir al-Islami seeks to eliminate western democracy and replace it with an extremist view of Islam which includes the creation of a world Islamic caliphate.

On the TV broadcast, Obama advisor Mogahed sat quiet while other guests and the host said that women should not be allowed to hold positions in government and that western democratic tradition was a “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism.”

But worse than not speaking up to these anti-woman and anti-western sentiments was what she herself added to the conversation. Speaking on the barbaric practice of Sharia law, Mogahed said:

“I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.

“The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.

“The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases.”

I guess a tradition that turns a blind eye to the “honor” murders of teenaged girls or forces victims of rape to get her rapist’s permission to take him to court isn’t so bad in this Obama advisor’s eyes? Maybe a law that is used to hang gays until they are dead or one used to institute beatings and oppressions of people trying to practice a religion other than Islam is just “misunderstood”?

If this is the sort of extremist that Barack Obama has “advising” him it is no wonder he’s spent the last 10 months cavorting about the globe apologizing for how evil America is!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The US threatened to derail a deal on global climate change today in a public showdown with China by expressing deep opposition to the existing Kyoto protocol. The US team also urged other rich countries to join it in setting up a new legal agreement which would, unlike Kyoto, force all countries to reduce emissions.

The Senate rejected it and Clinton refused to sign on because it would “result in serious harm to the US economy” as well as not including developing nations. Like China and India. Bush 43 rejected it for the same reasons.

In a day of high international rhetoric, chief US negotiator Jonathan Pershing said the US had moved significantly in the last year. “There has been a startling change in the US position. There is now engagement. We have had a 10-fold increase finance from the US. We have put $80bn into a green economic stimulus package. One year ago there was no commitment to a global agreement.”

But he forcefully outlined America’s opposition to the Kyoto protocol. “We are not going to be in the Kyoto protocol. We are not going to be part of an agreement that we cannot meet. We say a new agreement has to [be signed] by all countries. Things have changed since Kyoto. Where countries were in 1990 and today is very different. We cannot be stuck with an agreement 20 years old. We want action from all countries.”

At least the Obama admin. is staying strong for the moment in wanting an agreement that all nations are going to destroy their economies and takes us back to partying like it is 1799. How soon till President Neophyte caves?

In other AGW news, when we say that AGW is like a religion for the Left, well……..

A man who claims he was unfairly dismissed from his job because he believes in climate change is attempting to have his environmental views recognised under religious law.

Tim Nicholson, 42, says his beliefs on the environment are so strong they led to clashes with other senior staff at Grainger, one of the UK’s biggest property companies.

In March, employment judge David Neath gave Nicholson permission to take the firm to a tribunal over his treatment. The company is challenging the ruling, arguing that environmental beliefs are not the same as religious or philosophical ones.

Oooooooo-kay.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

“It would be easy to miss among the yucca and Joshua trees of this vast place — a small plywood box, set back from a gentle curve in a lonesome desert road. It looks like nothing so much as a miniature billboard without a message.

But inside the box is a 6 1/2 -foot white cross, built to honor the war dead of World War I. And because its perch on a prominent outcropping of rock is on federal land, it has been judged to be an unconstitutional display of government favoritism of one religion over another.

Whether the Mojave cross is ever unveiled again — or taken down for good — is up to the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Next week, it will get its first major chance to divine the meaning of the First Amendment command that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

If the court reaches the constitutional issues at hand, all sides agree it could provide clarity to the court’s blurry rules on church-and-state separations. It could also carry important implications for the fate of war memorials around the country that feature religious imagery — the Argonne Cross in Arlington National Cemetery, for instance, or the Memorial Peace Cross in Bladensburg.

The Mojave cross’s protectors, which include veterans groups and the federal government, say the symbol is a historic, secular tribute; its original plaque from the 1930s said it was erected to honor “the dead of all wars.” They argue that Congress has taken the steps to distance itself from any appearance of endorsing a religious display.

But the American Civil Liberties Union, Jewish and Muslim veterans, and others say government actions have only deepened the problem. In an effort to avoid the lower courts’ rulings that it must come down, Congress has designated the site the country’s only official national memorial to the dead of World War I, elevating it to an exclusive group of national treasures that includes the Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore.

Source

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me (John Ray) here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Here is the bottom line for me. Islam preaches mercy killings for Christian converts. Rifqa has converted to Christianity and is expressing a legitimate fear her parents would do Allah’s will if the government gave her back. Perhaps her fear is wrong, but is that possibility worth the chance? The bottom line for me is she is seventeen and would know her parent’s capability and devotion to Islam better than anyone. In a few months she has the legal right to live on her own anyway. Is giving her back to her parents really worth the risk? I don’t think so.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post