Archive for October 3rd, 2006

Rosie attacks pope over clergy sex scandal

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006

The Pope can’t get a break these days.

Less than three weeks after she insisted on national TV that “radical” Christians in America are just as dangerous as the Islamic terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 terror attacks on America, Rosie O’Donnell is now attacking the pope.

O’Donnell, the newest face on ABC’s “The View,” yesterday accused Pope Benedict XVI of covering up the Roman Catholic Church’s clergy sex scandal for the past two decades – an allegation denied as absurd by Catholics.

“The person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophiles in the Catholic Church from the eighties until just recently was guess who?” said O’Donnell. “The current pope!” Her source, she said, was an upcoming film about a serial pedophile priest, called “Deliver Us from Evil.”

But in a press release, William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said O’Donnell’s assertions about the pope in yesterday’s edition of “The View” were wildly off-base: “What started as a discussion on the problems facing the disgraced former congressman Mark Foley, quickly digressed into a lengthy conversation about the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. Given the fact that the exchange began and ended with brief comments about Foley, it is obvious that the real target was the Catholic Church.”

Original Link.

Pakistani jihad group issues fatwa: kill the Pope

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006

These “death squads” always have such colorful names.

Acting on behalf of the International Islamic Front (IIF) for Jihad Against the Crusaders and the Jewish People, which is headed by Osama bin Laden, the Markaz-ud-Dawa (MUD) of Pakistan, which is the political wing of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), is reported to have issued a Fatwa calling upon the Muslims to kill Pope Benedict XVI for a recent speech of his delivered on September 12,2006, which has been projected as anti-Islam by Al Qaeda and other jihadi terrorist organisations of the world.

2. The issue of the MUD fatwa came a few days before the latest video message of Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s No.2, in which he has made a severe attack on the Pope.

3. A report on the the MUD Fatwa to kill the Pope has been carried by the Pakistani journal “Ausaf” in its issue dated September 18,2006. It has reported as follows:

“Pakistan’s Jamaat-ud-Dawa has issued a Fatwa asking the Muslim community to kill Pope Benedict for his blasphemous statement about Prophet Mohammad. The Jamaat-ud-Dawa has declared death to Pope Benedict and said that in today’s world blasphemy of the Holy Koran and the Prophet has become a fashion. The leaders of the Jamaat were speaking at a Martyrs’ Islamic Conference in Karachi. Prominent Jamaat leader Hafiz Saifullah Khalid said that in the present circumstances, jehad has become obligatory for each Muslim. Muslims are being declared terrorists and our battle for survival has already started. The Muslim world has rejected the Pope’s apology and decided to continue protests and demonstrations in big cities. The Pope’s apology is just a drama and no political leader has any power to pardon him. It is part of a crusade initiated by the US in the name of terrorism. Instead of accepting fake apologies, Muslims should realise Europe’s enemity towards Islam and Muslim Ummah should prepare itself to defend its faith. Jamaat-ud-Dawa leader Hafiz Abdur Rahman Makki said the West and Europe have started a campaign against the Holy Koran and the Prophet and have abused jehad. We should take appropriate steps to deal with the champions of crusade. It is time for Muslim leaders to open their eyes and understand that the West had never been a friend of the Muslims and will never be so.”

Original Link.

More Pali Terrorist Fight Each Other

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006

GAZA (Reuters) – The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed wing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah faction, threatened for the first time on Tuesday to kill Hamas leaders, including exiled political chief Khaled Meshaal.

The threat marked an escalation in the power struggle between Fatah and the ruling Hamas movement after two days of internal fighting in the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank in which 12 Palestinians were killed and more than 100 wounded.

In a statement sent to Reuters, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades said it held Meshaal, Palestinian Interior Minister Saeed Seyam and senior Interior Ministry official Youssef al-Zahar responsible for the deaths.

“We in al-Aqsa announce, with all might and frankness, the ruling of the people in the homeland and in the diaspora, to execute the head of the sedition, Khaled Meshaal, Saeed Seyam and Youssef al-Zahar, and we will execute this ruling so those filthy people can be made an example,” the statement said.

Meshaal is based in Damascus, while Seyam and al-Zahar are in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas legislator Mushir al-Masri said al-Aqsa was “pouring oil on the fire” between the rival groups.

He said Hamas would “not show mercy” if any of its leaders were targeted by what he called “the leaders of the internal coup”.

A spokesman for the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Gaza declined to say whether the statement represented the views of the entire group or certain factions.

Original Link.

The Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation (Newer Passages Cancel Older Ones)

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006

I finally ran across information about Islamic Qur’anic abrogation (the practice that a passage recorded later supersedes a passage recorded earlier).
Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch has this to say:

In responding to Bryan Preston’s piece which touched on the Islamic doctrine of naskh, abrogation, Esmay says:

But, first off, please cite for me where the Koran says that a verse recorded later necessarily supercedes a verse recorded later. I don’t think you can. (For that matter, find me that as a general Biblical principle.)

Aside from Esmay’s incoherent request for a Qur’anic verse that says that what is written later cancels what is written later, there is a Qur’anic verse that says that when a verse is abrogated, the one that replaces it is as good as or better than the one it is replacing: “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?” (Qur’an 2:106).

Mr. Spencer goes on to say:

Many traditional Islamic theologians and Qur’an commentators argue that violent material, such as sura 9, abrogates more relatively tolerant material such as sura 109. This is not a newly-minted view “cherry-picked” by Osama bin Laden; it is in fact a very ancient view. When discussing why Muhammad didn’t begin sura 9 with the customary invocation bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim, “in the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful,” an intriguing answer comes from a Qur’an commentary that is still highly valued today in the Islamic world, Tafsir al-Jalalayn. This is a fifteenth-century work by the renowned imams Jalal al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Mahalli (1389-1459) and Jalal al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al-Suyuti (1445-1505). The invocation, suggests this tafsir, “is security, and [Sura 9] was sent down when security was removed by the sword.”

Security’s removal by the sword meant specifically the end of many treaties the Muslims had made with non-Muslims. Another still-influential Qur’an commentator, Ibn Kathir (1301-1372) quotes an earlier authority, Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, to establish that the Verse of the Sword, sura 9:5 (“slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”) “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.” He adds from another authority: “No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed.” And yet another early commentator, Ibn Juzayy (d. 1340) agrees that one of this verse’s functions is “abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur’an.”

This idea is crucial as a guide to the relationship of the Qur’an’s peaceful passages to its violent ones. Suras 16, 29, 52, 73, and 109 — the sources of many of the Qur’an’s verses of peace and tolerance — are all Meccan. That means that many Muslims, guided by commentators such as those above and the imams who teach from them, see these suras only in light of what was revealed later in Medina. Being the last or next-to-last sura revealed, sura 9 is generally understood as being the Qur’an’s last word on jihad, and all the rest of the book — including the “tolerance verses” — must be read in its light.

Ibn Kathir states this explicitly in his commentary on another “tolerance verse”: “And he [Muhammad] saith: O my Lord! Lo! these are a folk who believe not. Then bear with them (O Muhammad) and say: Peace. But they will come to know” (Qur’an 43:88-89). The commentator explains that “say Salam (peace!) means, ‘do not respond to them in the same evil manner in which they address you; but try to soften their hearts and forgive them in word and deed.’” However, that is not the last word on the subject. As Ibn Kathir notes: “But they will come to know. This is a warning from Allah for them. His punishment, which cannot be warded off, struck them, and His religion and His word was supreme. Subsequently Jihad and striving were prescribed until the people entered the religion of Allah in crowds, and Islam spread throughout the east and the west.”

In other words, Muhammad gave peace a chance, with the pacific suras, and then understood that jihad was the better course.

Homosexual Marriage Fight Will Spread, Conservatives Warn

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006

OK, check this out…

Massachusetts homosexuals were given the right to obtain marriage licenses on May 17, 2004, by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in its Goodridge v. Department of Public Health ruling. But a 1913 Massachusetts law prevents out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if they would be barred from doing so in their home states.

However, the highest court in Massachusetts left it up to a lower court — the Suffolk County Superior Court — to determine whether Wendy Becker and Mary Norton of Providence, R.I., could export their Massachusetts marriage license back to their home state, which does not recognize same-sex marriage.

The superior court Friday ruled in favor of Becker and Norton, arguing that since Rhode Island law defines marriage only in terms of “a bride and groom,” it could be construed as allowing members of the same sex to legally marry.

I want to make two comments here.

  • Would someone please explain to the Massachusetts judicial system that they can’t impose their rules on other states?
  • This is why we need a marriage amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch on Monday insisted that his state would not recognize the court order from Massachusetts or any homosexual marriages performed in Massachusetts.

    Michael Maynard, spokesman for Rhode Island Republican Gov. Donald Carcieri, echoed Lynch’s remarks. “This is basically the case of a Massachusetts court interpreting Rhode Island law, so at the end of the day, any interpretation of Rhode Island law made by a court in another state is meaningless,” Maynard told Cybercast News Service .

    “A Massachusetts state court ruling has no jurisdiction here in Rhode Island and a Rhode Island court will interpret Rhode Island law,” he said. “We have to rely on Rhode Island law, and our law doesn’t allow [same sex marriage] right now.

    But Daniels was not satisfied. “The forces behind the case have proved that their goals have not changed, which is to destroy marriage in this country against the will of the people through the courts,” Daniels said. “They are determined to use the courts to force this on our country.”

    He pointed to New Jersey, which is currently embroiled in a court battle to legalize same sex marriage. “The New Jersey case is probably the most dangerous case that we currently are facing,” Daniels said. “The only thing that will stop this is the [federal] marriage protection amendment.”

    Original Link.

    “From Abraham to Jesus” an Exhibit

    Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006

    I ran across this article at Agape Press about an exhibit that is touring the U.S. called “From Abraham to Jesus”. It looks very interesting to me (if I had not become an engineer, I would have been an archeologist) and if it comes to a city close enough to you, I recommend trying to see it.

    Imagine being transported back to the Holy Land just as it was thousands of years ago… For the first time ever, millions of people will have just this experience.

    From Abraham to Jesus is the “can’t miss” event of the year. This groundbreaking touring exhibit features the largest most breathtaking, collection of Holy Land antiquities to ever hit U.S. soil. The multi-media exhibit combines the awe of over 340 priceless artifacts, some dating back to the time of Abraham, original video footage shot throughout the Holy Land, and the power of modern multimedia technology presentation, propelling visitors on a landmark walk through 2,500 years of Biblical history that they will never forget. This event will also feature the U.S. inaugural visit of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Ossuary (bone box) of Alexander, son of Simon the Cyrene, the man who carried the cross for Jesus. This stunning 30,000 square foot walk-through exhibit will travel to 28 cities nationwide, beginning September 2006 and concluding December 2008.

    Original Link.
    From Abraham to Jesus Website.

    Democrats Kill Parental-Rights Bill as Senate Session Adjourns

    Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006

    Regular visitors to this blog will know how I feel about abortion. What I fail to understand is how anyone can find anything wrong with parental notification. If this is not being hypocritical, I don’t know what is.
    Listen, we require parental consent before a minor girl can even get her ears pierced. A hospital cannot render non-life threatening treatment to a minor without parental consent.
    So how on earth can anyone justify not requiring parental consent before an abortion, which is major surgery? I’ll tell you, there is no justification.
    You Christians who are Democrats need to seriously look at what your party believes versus what the Bible teaches.
    This will be a very controversial statement, but I have to admit that I’m confused how someone is a Democrat and a Christian without having the diametrically opposed tenets of each cause serious conflicts in your minds.
    If one looks at the Senate, a Christian can clearly see that only qualification necessary for a federal judge, in the eyes of the Democrat, is to uphold abortion. Any potential appointee is voted down by the Democrats if there is even a hint that the candidate is the least bit anti-abortion.
    Now, please don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that Democrats are “bad” people; I just have to wonder how one can believe in what Christians are supposed to believe in, and also believe in and support the Democratic Party’s platform.

    (AgapePress) – Pro-life groups are lamenting the demise of a piece of legislation they say is supported by 80 percent of Americans — a bill that would have required a minor girl’s parents to be informed before she had an abortion, and that would have punished individuals who transported a minor across state lines for an abortion in order to circumvent parental notification laws in the girl’s home state.

    Senate Majority Bill Frist did all he could to bring Senate Bill 403 to a vote before that chamber adjourned this session — but a cloture vote on the Child Custody Protection Act fell three votes short on Friday, falling victim again to Democratic-led efforts to prevent the bill from being sent along to the White House. (See earlier article) Frist had hoped the procedural move would force a vote on a bill that the Senate had passed earlier on a 65-34 vote — and the House had passed 264-153 — but his filing of cloture required at least 60 votes. On Friday, he could only muster 57; fifty-one Republicans and six Democrats (see roll call vote).

    The bill will now go without a vote in this Congress, much to the dismay of pro-lifers who had praised both the House and Senator Frist for their efforts to get the bill ushered through Congress. “It is remarkable,” says Douglas Johnson of National Right to Life, “that only six out of 45 Senate Democrats voted to require a parent to be notified before an abortion is performed on a young daughter in some other state.” Some pro-life supporters are suggesting that several of those voted earlier in favor of the bill were strong-armed into the opposing column.

    “We commend [Frist] for fighting to the end to free this legislation from the grip of a Senate minority — a minority that has preserved the ability of profiteering abortionists to keep parents in the dark,” Johnson adds.

    Concerned Women for America echoes Johnson’s comments, calling the bill’s death “an enormous loss” for children’s safety and parental rights. Lanier Swann, CWA’s director of government relations, blames “partisan antics” for the cloture result on Friday.

    “The Senate chose to disregard the American public’s wish to see this bill implemented,” Swann states in a press release. “Apparently they are more dedicated to divisive partisanship than to the American public for whom this issue is overwhelmingly popular.”

    Swann evidently also sees the vote as a victory for child predators. “There are many ill-intentioned adults who would like to cover up their actions by silencing an impregnated minor,” she remarks. “The Child Custody Protection Act would have prevented this heinous crime from happening by requiring parental consent in states that already have laws in the books.”

    The U.S. House had passed the Senate version earlier last week, calling their measure the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) and adding a provision that would require abortion providers to notify parents of a minor seeking an abortion at least 24 hours before it takes place.

    Original Link.

    “Iraq: The Bogus Recruitment Tool” by David Limbaugh

    Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006

    The November elections are fast approaching, and we still don’t have the faintest idea what the Democrats would do in Iraq. That’s because they have no earthly idea and certainly no consensus. That’s why we should call their bluff and make this the issue of the campaign and debate it every day.

    For purposes of argument let’s assume as true their debatable allegation that attacking Iraq has set us back in the war on terror because terrorists have used it as a recruiting tool. How should we use this information constructively?

    We first have to ask why our attack has driven terrorist recruitment. The antiwar left’s unspoken insinuation is that our attack was immoral, perhaps even criminal, and terrorists, being morally sensitive creatures, are justifiably outraged at our alleged neoconservative imperialism.

    Without question, Democrats have been trying to paint America’s invasion of Iraq as criminal. How else can we interpret their endless allegations that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD and about a relationship between Saddam and 9/11 to fabricate an excuse for war?

    Shouldn’t we, then, just disgracefully withdraw from Iraq, apologize to the terrorists and make amends to the Iraqi people? Of course, that would be problematic, given that we liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator, are helping them to establish constitutional self-rule and are defending their new government against terrorists who seek to stifle the people’s will and incite a civil war.

    But our invasion was neither immoral, nor criminal for a multitude of reasons I’ll not rehash here. Yet we are told that terrorists are nevertheless having a recruitment heyday over it. If so, why? Because they can. They hate the United States — they’ve been teaching this hatred in their mosques and madrassas long before Iraq, long before 9/11 — and they have exploited our justifiable intervention by warring against us in Iraq and enticing others to join their cause with their (and the Democrats’) Bush-and-America-slamming propaganda.

    They appeal to those who share their hatred for the United States and for pluralistic and free societies such as the evil, capitalistic, Israel-supporting American empire is helping to establish in Iraq. To thwart this would both weaken the United States and smother a Muslim democracy, which to them is much worse than a secular tyranny.

    Continuing with the assumption that our invasion of Iraq, even if morally justified, swelled terrorist ranks, does that mean — using the full benefit of hindsight — that we shouldn’t have attacked?

    I don’t believe our invasion will set us back in the long run unless we withdraw before Iraq can defend itself. If terrorists are using Iraq to stimulate recruitment, they are doing so calculatingly and opportunistically and will exploit any and every other conceivable U.S. action elsewhere to promote recruitment.

    Those who believe we can do anything to mollify terrorists or dissuade them from further recruitment efforts are delusional. We might have denied the terrorists a short-term recruitment tool if we had done the wrong thing by letting Saddam continue to be a world menace, but not for long. They would have found another excuse soon enough.

    There is no way we can avoid a confrontation with terrorists, who have long since declared war on us. If not Iraq, it would be somewhere else. We couldn’t even avoid confrontation with terrorists by withdrawing from the world. That wouldn’t satisfy them either. They want the United States to be part of the worldwide caliphate as well, and at whatever point we resist, they will have their greatest terrorist recruitment tool yet.

    Original Link.

    Gunman Reportedly Bent on ‘Revenge’ Kills Girls, Self at Amish School

    Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006

    What a sad thing to happen. Fox News is reporting that five of the girls have now died. Having grown up near an Amish community, I can say for sure, that the Amish are not a people who cause any problems for the surrounding communities. They almost always stay to themselves and do not impose on those who are not Amish.
    Please join me in praying for these people.

    NICKEL MINES, Pa. — A local milk-truck driver with a childhood grudge and an array of guns Monday took a one-room Amish schoolhouse by storm, sent boys and adults outside, blocked doorways with wood, then opened fire on a dozen girls, killing four in total before committing suicide.

    Three girls were pronounced dead soon after the incident. A fourth girl later died at a Pennsylvania hospital, and at least seven victims were still critically wounded, FOXNews confirmed.

    It was the nation’s third deadly school shooting in less than a week, and it sent shock waves through Lancaster County’s bucolic Amish country, a picturesque landscape of horse-drawn buggies, green pastures and neat-as-a-pin farms, where violent crime is virtually nonexistent.

    Most of the victims had been shot execution-style at point-blank range after being lined up along the chalkboard, their feet bound with wire and plastic ties, authorities said. Two young students were killed, along with a female teacher’s aide who was slightly older than the students, state police Commissioner Jeffrey B. Miller said.

    “This is a horrendous, horrific incident for the Amish community. They’re solid citizens in the community. They’re good people. They don’t deserve … no one deserves this,” State Police Commissioner Jeffrey B. Miller said.

    The gunman, Charles Carl Roberts IV, a 32-year-old truck driver from the nearby town of Bart, was bent on killing young girls as a way of “acting out in revenge for something that happened 20 years ago” when he was a boy, Miller said.

    Miller refused to say what that long-ago hurt was. “We’re still looking into the motive. I’m not prepared to speak on that yet, there are some things we have to continue to investigate there,” he said, possibly including personal trauma Roberts’ had experienced in his own family more recently.

    Miller also couldn’t say why females were chosen, but said that a great deal of planning had gone into Roberts’ actions. “It’s clear that he did a great deal of planning, just from the list of materials; it appears he intended to be prepared for a lengthy siege and intended to harm these kids and to harm himself,” he said.

    Roberts had backed up his pickup truck to the entrance of the school, which Miller said struck the teacher as odd, and upon entering the schoolhouse according to Miller Roberts brought with him a 9mm semi automatic pistol he purchased in 2004, a 12 gauge shotgun, a bucket, a change of clothes and a bag with 600 rounds of ammunition, gunpowder, a stun gun, two knives, various tools, wire and rolls of clear tape.

    Original Link.