Archive for February 27th, 2008

“Obama Is Our First Muslim Presidential Contender In The Same Way That Clinton Was Our First Black President” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler

Wednesday, February 27th, 2008

Talk Radio (The Mancow show) called last night and asked me to join them this morning to comment on the Obama-Farrakhan matter. And so I made a dutiful list of “talking points” and tried to overcome my professorial politeness in order to get a few words in edgewise on a wonderfully high-energy program. The interview will be posted in a few hours at Mancow.com and here’s some of what I said.

I believe that Obama is our first Muslim Presidential contender.

No, I am not saying that he secretly is or ever was a Muslim. Obama is a Muslim in the same way that Bill Clinton was allegedly our first Black President. He is , stylistically, a United Nations-style postmodern multi-cultural relativist and that means Obama may refuse to call barbarism by its rightful name if that barbarism is practiced by Muslims .

Also, on at least one very public occasion, there is a photograph of Obama failing (or refusing) to pledge alliegance to the American flag. When challenged on this and other questions of patriotism, Obama explained that the true American patriot is one who criticizes his country’s faults, not one who merely salutes its flag.

Obama might be the first Muslim French intellectual Presidential contender, a more politically correct and darker-skinned John Kerry or Howard Dean, and the Dreamboat of Code Pink and of the many high-profile but predominantly left-feminists who have been signing “feminist” petitions for Obama. For Obama—but not for Hillary, who may be the last women in position to run for the American Presidency for the next fifty years. I admit it: I actually dressed up to vote for Hillary in the New York primary since this was the first time in nearly fifty years that I had such an opportunity.

No, I am not saying that I will automatically vote for Hillary over McCain nor am I saying that McCain is My Guy. That is the subject for future musings. And now back to Barack.

When I characterize Obama as our first Muslim Presidential contender, I am not talking about the photo of Obama wearing a turban or the headgear of a Somali Elder. I am talking about his ties to Trinity United Church of Christ Pastor Jeremiah Wright (Obama has been a member for twenty years), and Pastor Wright’s ties to Farrakhan—who just last night bent over backward in his praise of Obama as our new Savior. Farrakhan addressed only the “black, brown, red, and yellow” people of America and of the world , not the “white” people, and compared Obama to the founder of the Nation of Islam, Fard Mohammed, whose mother was white and whose father was black—just like Obama’s parents. Farrakhan claimed that both men were “Saviours” and that Obama might be the only man who can save America.

Will Obama try to minimize this? Will he disavow it? Or will he ignore these words of praise completely?

Let me remind us that Farrakhan is a black separatist and black nationalist Muslim and the man who referred to Judaism as a “gutter religion.” And Pastor Wright shares his vision of the importance of black nationalism (packaged as black liberation theology) and has publicly honored Farrakhan. When questioned about this, Obama said that families have disagreements. Yes, Michelle Obama once wrote a thesis at Princeton which allegedly recognizes the importance of black separatism given white racist America. Do the Obamas also have family disagreements about this?

Look: Where does Obama stand on Islamic gender and religious apartheid? Is he aware that it has been penetrating the West, including America, the country he wishes to govern? Does he have a plan as to how he will deal with it? Does he stand with the Islamists or with their victims, beginning with Muslim women and Muslim intellectuals? Where does he stand on the proliferation of Muslim arranged marriages. polygamy, face-veiling, wife- and daughter-beating, and honor murders in America? And on the Islamist use of American civil rights law to safeguard Islamic gender and religious apartheid and Islamic separatism in America?

Is Obama aware of the persecution of “infidels,” beginning with Christians, in Muslim lands? Does he have a foreign policy vision that would demand reciprocity for all religions in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Iran before we allow American law to be used to construct mini-Saudi Arabias or Irans in America?

Why has no one been asking all the candidates, beginning with Our Savior Obama these questions?

Obama’s various alliances, silences, and minimizations are worrisome. In addition, Obama has chosen a foreign policy team that has been consistently pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel; many of Obama’s chosen advisors have engaged in boycotts and urged divestment in Israel as if Israel really were “apartheid” South Africa.

It is also true that recently, in Ohio, Obama did talk about the importance of Israel’s security and did recognize that she is surrounded by enormous hatred. Former American Ambasador to Israel, Dennis Ross, has said that he “saw no difference between Senator Clinto and Senator Obama on Israel policy.” However, as noted in an editorial today in the New York Sun, Obama also presumed to tell democratic Israel whom it ought to elect—and not elect, and what the parameters ought to be for a future Palestinian state. In case you are guessing, he called for “contiguous borders.”

Has he called for an end to the Kassam rockets that rain down on Israeli civilians in Sderot? And for an end to Saudi, Iranian, and Syrian support for Hamas and Hezbollah as they all seek to annihilate the only Jewish state?

Obama also wants to talk to Amadinejad who has referred to Israelis as “filthy bacteria,” has funded countless acts of murderous terrorism against Israel, and who has pledged to genocidally exterminate the Jewish state. “Talk” he said—and without pre-conditions. (Of course, Obama’s handlers are backpedaling on this one as fast as they can).

It is true: Obama is a thrilling orator. But he is vague and keeps repeating himself just as an actor might. Yes, it is thrilling that an African-American can and is finally running for the American Presidency but it is equally thrilling, or it should be, that a woman is finally a Presidential contender as well. And we, the people should not be voting for—or against— anyone because of their race or gender. Their agenda alone is what should matter.

The last time so many women cheered and swooned and orgasmically submitted themselves in large crowds to another thrilling orator took place in Germany and Austria in the 1930s and 1940s. (Lionel Chetwynd, in the current issue of The Weekly Standard, compares Obama to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau of Canada and analyzes how the wildly adored Trudeau’s practices led to the ongoing ruination of Canada).

No, I am not saying that Obama is Hitler. I am saying that people seem desperate and wish to avoid facing a grim reality and many hard choices; they would rather allow a Savior to distract them and to make promises that he either cannot keep, (no one can), or promises that, if realized, will lead to our inevitable doom.

My friend and colleague, the scholar Bat Ye’or told me that if Obama is elected, America will become dhimmified even faster than Europe.

Senator Obama: Make my day. Prove her wrong. Tell us where you stand on Islamic fundamentalism, Islamist jihad, and Islamic gender and religious apartheid.

———————————————-

Dr. Phyllis Chesler is the well known author of classic works, including the bestseller Women and Madness (1972) and The New Anti-Semitism (2003). She has just published The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan), as well as an updated and revised edition of Women and Madness. She is an Emerita Professor of psychology and women’s studies, the co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology (1969) and the National Women’s Health Network (1974). She is currently on the Board of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and lives in New York City. Her website is www.phyllis-chesler.com.
We are delighted to have Dr. Chesler as a contributor to the Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog.

Original Link.

Christian Photographer Hauled Before Commission for Refusing Same-Sex Job

Wednesday, February 27th, 2008

I expect the persecution of Christians to continue to worsen as time goes on.

New Mexico, January 30, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The case of a Christian photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony”, was heard before the New Mexico Human Rights Division on Monday.

A same-sex couple asked Elaine Huguenin, co-owner with her husband of Elane Photography, to photograph a “commitment ceremony” that the two women wanted to hold. Huguenin declined because her Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.

The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, which is now trying Elane Photography under state antidiscrimination laws for sexual orientation discrimination.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a legal alliance that is dedicated to defending and protecting religious freedom, sanctity of life, marriage, and family, is currently defending Elane Photography.

“On Monday we defended Elane Photography in court, saying basically that no person should be required to help others advance a message that they disagree with,” ADF Senior Counsel and Senior Vice-President of the Office of Strategic Initiatives, Jordan Lorence, told LifeSiteNews in an interview today. “That’s a basic First Amendment principle. The government is punishing Elaine photography for refusing to take photos which obviously advance the messages sent by the same-sex ceremony – that marriage can be defined as two women or two men.”

In their complaint the homosexual couple has sought for an injunction against Elane Photography that will forbid them from ever again refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony. They have also requested attorney’s fees.

“Depending on how far up the ladder this goes of appeal that could be a lot of money,” said Lorence. “Hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

Lorence said that the ADF is framing its case in a similar fashion to the 1995 Supreme Court “Hurley” Case. “In the Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade case the US Supreme Court said that the State of Massachusetts could not punish a privately run parade because it refused to allow a homosexual advocacy group to carry banners and signs in the parade. They said that would be compelled speech, ordering the parade organizers to help promote a message they do not want to promote. To apply the discrimination law that way violates freedom of speech. We are making a similar kind of argument in this case.”

Lorence said that this current case is demonstrative of a “tremendous threat” facing those with traditional views on marriage and family.

“I think that this is a tremendous threat to First Amendment rights. Those who are advocating for same-sex marriage and for rights based upon sexual orientation keep arguing, ‘We are not going to apply these against churches. We are going to protect people’s right of conscience. We are all about diversity and pluralism.'”

But, in practice, says Lorence, “Business owners with traditional views or church owners with traditional definitions of marriage are now vulnerable for lawsuits under these nondiscrimination laws. There are 20 states that have these laws where they ban sexual orientation discrimination. Most of the major cities in the United States also have these kinds of ordinances. So these are a big threat, as the federal government debates whether to make this a blanket nationwide law.

“We see that these [non-discrimination laws] are not rectifying some unjust discrimination, but being used to punish those who speak out in favor of traditional marriage and sexual restraint,” he concluded.

Lorence said that the ADF is “cautiously optimistic that the commission will do the right thing.” If the New Mexico Commission, however, decides against Elane Photography, Lorence said that the ADF would appeal the decision all the way up to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

Original Link.

Homosexual Supporters Given Millions To Help ‘Criminalize’ Christian Opposition

Wednesday, February 27th, 2008

Pro-family activist Peter LaBarbera warns that a $65 million endowment given to several groups that promote the homosexual lifestyle will be used in their efforts to “criminalize” Christian opposition to their agenda.

The Pride Foundation of Seattle announced on Sunday that Ric Weiland — one of the first five people to work at software giant Microsoft — has left $19 million of his estate to the homosexual activist group, and an additional $46 million for the Foundation to distribute to ten other pro-homosexuality groups, including the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Network, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).

Weiland, who retired in 1988, committed suicide in 2006 at age 53 after a long struggle with depression and homosexuality.

Pointing to Weiland’s bequeathal, Peter LaBarbera with the conservative group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality says activists pushing the homosexual lifestyle are more committed to their version of evangelism than most conservative Christians are to speaking the truth in the public square.

Original Link

Farrakhan Praises Obama as ‘Hope of Entire World’

Wednesday, February 27th, 2008

I would be seriously distancing myself from Farrakhan is I were Obama.

CHICAGO — In his first major public address since a cancer crisis, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the “hope of the entire world” that the U.S. will change for the better. The 74-year-old Farrakhan, former leader of the black Muslim group, never endorsed Obama outright, but spent much of his nearly two-hour speech Sunday to an estimated crowd of 20,000 people praising the Illinois senator.

“This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better,” he said. “This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama’s audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed.”

Farrakhan compared Obama to the religion’s founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father.
“A black man with a white mother became a savior to us,” he told the crowd of mostly followers. “A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.”

Farrakhan also leveled small jabs at Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, suggesting that she represents the politics of the past and has been engaging in dirty politics.

Said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton: “Sen. Obama has been clear in his objections to Minister Farrakhan’s past pronouncements and has not solicited the minister’s support.”

Farrakhan rebuilt the Nation of Islam, which promotes black empowerment and nationalism, in the late 1970s after W.D. Mohammed, the son of longtime leader Elijah Mohammed, moved his followers toward mainstream Islam.

Farrakhan has drawn attention for calling Judaism a “gutter religion” and suggesting crack cocaine might have been a CIA plot to enslave blacks.

In recent years, however, officials with the Nation of Islam have promoted unity and tolerance among religions. Farrakhan now often quotes the texts of other religions, such as the Bible, in his speeches.

Farrakhan’s keynote address at McCormick Place, the city’s convention center, wrapped up three days of events geared at unifying followers and targeting youth.

It had a different tone from a year ago, when Farrakhan made what was called his final public address at a Saviours’ Day event in Detroit. The 74-year-old was recovering from complications from prostate cancer and months earlier had temporarily passed on leadership duties of the organization’s day-to-day activities to an executive board.

Original Link.

“Gaza’s Culture of Self-Destruction” By Yael Kaynan

Wednesday, February 27th, 2008

The situation in Gaza is, indeed, “grim and miserable,” as the UN’s Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, John Holmes, noted the other day. Certainly, the Palestinians living in Gaza are struggling under severe economic conditions. There is no doubt that sanctions levied against Gaza inflict hardship and deprivation on the citizens of Gaza. These sanctions include closed borders with both Israel and Egypt, reductions in electrical power and fuel deliveries, and deliveries of food supplies that keep them short of a humanitarian crisis but, by no means, allow for comfortable existence. Yet, it is not the current deplorable economic conditions, the border blockade, nor the effects of the other sanctions that make the situation in Gaza so grim and miserable. These, after all, are recent and temporary measures, creating a temporary state of hardship. No, what makes the situation in Gaza so grim is far more insidious.

It is something that will remain to plague the citizens of Gaza long after memories have faded of the months spent eating a bland diet of staples, of the inability to purchase flat-screen televisions or to spend vacations in the Sinai. It is the very culture that the Palestinians in Gaza have spent so many years carefully crafting that makes their present — and their long-term future — both grim and miserable.

The people in Gaza need to stop and take a good look at the culture and society that they are creating and begin to think hard about how they might begin to undo the damage to their social fabric that is, with every day that passes, increasing. They should begin their social re-engineering not for the sake of their Israeli enemies across the border, nor to increase their standing on the world stage, but rather for their own sakes because inculcating blind hatred, with a murderous twist, against another group has some unintended side effects for the culture that does the inculcating.

When children are raised on a steady diet of hatred, disrespect for human life, and violence, those children grow up to be violent and with no regard for the life, or well-being, of others. And not just for “those” others but for all others, including those within their own society. Parents in Gaza need to ask themselves, “What kind of person will my child grow up to be if I have taught him to celebrate the murder of a 73 year old woman by passing out candy and flowers?” as the children of Gaza did in large numbers recently when two suicide bombers managed to kill an old woman and put her even more elderly husband into intensive care.

Original Link.