Archive for March 22nd, 2006

Islamic Advocacy Group Silent on Afghan Apostasy Trial

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006

And one would expect them to vocal about it? No way. They are way to busy complaining about cartoons of their “prophet” to actually talk about someone loosing his life because he converted to Christianity. Hypocrites!!

( – What does the Council on American-Islamic Relations have to say about the trial of an Afghan Muslim who may get the death penalty for converting to Christianity? Nothing so far, noted a conservative, pro-family group.
“Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations so far has been silent,” the Family Research Council said in an email message on Tuesday.
“Hooper is usually quick to decry any anti-Muslim slight. By not speaking out against this outrageous action, CAIR is dealing with the issue,” said FRC President Tony Perkins.
CAIR, in an email message of its own on Tuesday, did not mention the case of Abdul Rahman, who converted to Christianity 16 years ago. The judge hearing Rahman’s case was quoted as saying that Rahman could face the death penalty if he refused to return to Islam.
Some of CAIR’s leaders, along with other Muslims, met on Tuesday with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes and top officials of the National Security Council. But the meetings focused on outreach efforts to the Muslim world and “how to address growing levels of Islamophobia in the West,” CAIR said.
CAIR recently launched a “Not in the Name of Islam” campaign, which seeks to distance Muslims from terrorism and “correct misperceptions of Islam.”
The apostasy trial of Abdul Rahman has rallied American Christians. The American Family Association is circulating an online petition, urging readers to contact President Bush and request his intervention in the case.
And the Family Research Council’s Perkins said he’s sent letters to President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), the respective foreign affairs committee chairmen, telling them that Americans have not given their lives in Afghanistan so Christians can be executed.
“The judge in Rahman’s case soothingly assures us that all will be forgiven if he renounces his Christianity because ‘Islam is a religion of tolerance.’ Really?” asked Perkins.
Perkins is particularly upset with comments made by White House spokesman Sean McCormack, who said on Tuesday, “Freedom of worship is an important element of any democracy and these are issues as Afghan democracy matures that they are going to have to deal with increasingly.”
Said Perkins, “Religious freedom is not just ‘an important element’ of democracy; it is its cornerstone. Religious persecution leads inevitably to political tyranny. Five hundred years of history confirm this.”
Perkins has said that President Bush should send Vice President Cheney or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Afghanistan to read the Afghan government the riot act.
“Americans will not give their blood and treasure to prop up new Islamic fundamentalist regimes,” he said earlier this week.

See my original post here.

San Antonio Faces Lawsuit Threat Over Pre-Council Meeting Prayers

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006

Another lawsuit over the non-existent “separation of church and state ” thing again. When are these atheist nutcases going to realize that it’s already been declared both by the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court that it’s not unconstitutional for a public body to pray before they open their meeting? Probably never.

(AgapePress) – The City of San Antonio, Texas, may be facing litigation over its practice of starting its city government sessions with prayer. An organization that specializes in religious liberty cases has offered to defend the city in a lawsuit over its invocations at its City Council meetings.
Recently, a local resident threatened to sue the city, claiming the prayers violate the establishment clause of the Constitution of the United States. Upon hearing of the lawsuit threat, Plano-based Liberty Legal Institute offered to represent the city free of charge.
Hiram Sasser, Liberty Legal Institute’s director of litigation, says the complaint and others like it are “completely unjustified and frivolous.” He notes that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that invocation prayers at meetings of government bodies do not violate the Constitution.
Besides, Sasser points out, the way the City Council’s invocations have been offered has made them all the more constitutionally defensible. “What’s interesting about the situation in San Antonio,” he explains, “is that they’ve had such a wide variety of practitioners — Muslims, Jewish folks, Native Americans, various Christian denominations — such that they’re completely insulated from attack, having that kind of diverse representation.”
The attorney notes that San Antonio is one of many cities across the United States where local government bodies have come under attack for permitting individual expressions of faith in an official forum. “A lot of these cities allow themselves to be bullied by these people demanding a cease of all prayer or religion in public life,” he says.
“It’s unfortunate,” Sasser continues. “But when you stand up to these guys, nine times out of ten they just back down,” he asserts, “because they were bluffing, and they knew the law was not on their side.”
The constitutional litigation experts at Liberty Legal Institute “are confident the City of San Antonio will stand strong and battle to protect First Amendment rights,” Sasser adds. He says the City Council has the right to allow invocations at the beginnings of its meetings, and his organization is ready to aid the Council members in fighting any suit threatening to prohibit this constitutionally-protected practice.