What do Muslim girls do for prom?

If this is what they have to deal with just to leave the house?

I use only the finest vests for my martyr missions

Yes it is their religion. It is not poverty, not depression, not mental illness, and not the injustices imposed by the West. The wealthier you are, the more likely you are to support terrorism. We've known this for a while but reluctance to seem intolerant and denounce one religion to the exclusion of others makes many silent. To all secular people suffering this malaise... psst: Their all laughably stupid, but they're not all as violent and crazy. Alan Krueger from Princeton synthesizes the data here well enough for me to read it on the bus ride home.

Quote for the Day

"What influence have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of Civil authority, in many instances they have seen the upholding of the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberty of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, needs them not." -James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments

The religious were much more openly hostile to democratic movements in Madison's time than now. The rise of Marxism accounts for this. If democracy was hostile to religion in consequence then Marxism was hostile to it in practice, and the Catholic church tentatively cast its lot with the less pernicious enemy. The ease with which they can abandon any alliance with democracy or affable relations with open societies, and take up a cosy stance with totalitarians, is easily seen in with the Lateran Treaties with Mussolini, the Concordat with Hitler, (which included adulations given on his birthday) and its endorsement of Franco's invasion of Spain.

In a sane world this all might have shamed them and reduced them to ignominy but people who believe they have a tin can on a string to the creator of the universe are rarely so self-conscious. I was reminded of this gem from Madison upon reading an article in Reason about the Danish cartoon controversy and was given to pondering Joseph Ratzinger's reaction to the deluge of rioting and violence enjoined upon the foreign embassies and citizens of Denmark:

In response to several requests on the Holy See's position vis-à-vis recent offensive representations of the religious sentiments of individuals and entire communities, the Vatican press office can state:

1. The right to freedom of thought and expression, sanctioned by the Declaration of the Rights of Man, cannot imply the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers. This principle applies obviously for any religion.

2. In addition, coexistence calls for a climate of mutual respect to favor peace among men and nations. Moreover, these forms of exasperated criticism or derision of others manifest a lack of human sensitivity and may constitute in some cases an inadmissible provocation. A reading of history shows that wounds that exist in the life of peoples are not cured this way.

3. However, it must be said immediately that the offenses caused by an individual or an organ of the press cannot be imputed to the public institutions of the corresponding country, whose authorities might and should intervene eventually according to the principles of national legislation. Therefore, violent actions of protest are equally deplorable. Reaction in the face of offense cannot fail the true spirit of all religion. Real or verbal intolerance, no matter where it comes from, as action or reaction, is always a serious threat to peace.

So the problem is not rioting, arson, and murder. The problem is blasphemy. And so bereft is he of any appreciation for the importance of free speech that he thinks not only should blasphemy be shunned, it should be banned. I know of no other way to read the statement, "The right to freedom of thought and expression, sanctioned by the Declaration of the Rights of Man, cannot imply the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers" as anything other than approval for the destruction of free speech. For there is no such thing as limited free speech. The problem is not that Muslims cannot conduct themselves within the bounds of civil society when offended. The problem is not that every expression of Muslim outrage is underwritten with either a threat or an act of violence. And the problem is not that a peaceful country had its security threatened. The problem is that in a free society people have the audacity to treat religion as they treat any other set of ideas, and mock it. The problem is that blasphemy is not a crime. I don't see how they can be confused as allies when they seek to subject our freedoms to the selective reactions of the faithful.

More Muslim Outrage

The Muslim world is outraged... again. And my stars!... the last country containing containing artists with the balls to dare offend them is Sweden. And now, as if burning embassies, rioting, murder, and vicious threats of violence weren't sufficient displays of arrogance, a dispatch of ambassadors from Muslim countries is demanding that Sweden enact laws to protect them from offense. They suggest something along the lines of, "the protection enjoyed by Jews and homosexuals," which is entirely appropriate as this happens to be nothing.

Hopefully the Swedish authorities will channel Teresa Heinz and tell them to "shove it" but I am not hopeful. The entirety of this episode could be solved by telling these representatives that in a democracy a government has no responsibility to police the thoughts expressed in its nation's privately owned publications but such principles seem to be derogated when the offended group has utterly no comprehension of or respect (something they feel due to themselves) for the concept of free speech, and as such have no comprehension of why in such a society blasphemy is not a crime.

But alas, as we are unceasingly reminded, we must respect people of faith. And in that spirit of respect the Swedish Prime Minister has agreed to meet with Muslims to discuss the criminalization of satirizing Islam. One would be tempted to think this a quite insidious threat to a free press, but this concern has escaped the Muslim representatives, and their proclamations that "work needs to be done," "comprehensive measures are needed," and that "students should be taught to express themselves in ways that don't cause offense or hurt." If their is anything I hold dear it is the freedom to say anything I desire about their illiterate, epileptic, and sanguinary prophet but I along with the people of Sweden will undoubtedly find it in ourselves to refrain from rioting and arson in the face of this utterly castrating arrogance.



I don't know how any sane reader can see this as anything but a direct demand that free speech be abridged. Whether the cartoon is compatible with the perceived journalistic responsibility of the newspaper is irrelevant as a private newspaper has the right to publish anything it pleases, and yes this includes a right to insult. Liberals, Conservatives, gays, and Jews are not protected from offense and the fact that blasphemy is not a crime is indicative of nothing more than the fact that we are not a theocracy- a form of government so natural to them that they have no comprehension of how a people could value a system of government when they don't believe the creator of the universe endorses it.

Is there any way to express this to them? Is there any way to convince them that if they want to end criticism of their religion it is to argue against it or reform? No there isn't and it is stupid to try. This is a threat equal to the threat of terrorism which underlies all their paroxysms of outrage, and it seeks to undo everything that is worth saving in our culture.

The Algerian ambassador called his meeting with the Swedish PM "was an excellent initiative taken in a spirit of appeasement." They're not even trying to hide the creepy historical parallels anymore.

South Park was right!

Good news. South Park's rather ham-fisted pillorying of the main stream media's cowardice when faced with threats from Islam has turned out to be right as a string of newspapers have refused to publish an episode of the comic Opus for fear of offending Muslims. This will come as news to no one. Not for lack of publicity though but because the world I think has divided into two camps on this issue. One camp who simply expects this sort of thing and treats the perpetrators with the contempt and derision they deserve (South Park), and another who thinks this drooly-chinned cowardice (sorry, "respect") is appropriate.

Here's Volokh's take.

And another.

The World's stupidest fatwas

More good news about how intelligently religion makes people act. I don't know how you can see this as an indication of anything but that the religious leaders of the Middle East are almost totally insane.

Why is it only secularists who can say this?

The civilization vs. mentality question is unimportant in my view. This woman was raised in the culture she condemns and epitomizes why we need to fight this war. Asking the question; "Why do they hate us?" should tell us not what we have to fix but what we have to preserve. It is the battle between the genuine article of a mentality that strives toward human happiness on one hand and one that would shackle it in the name of fantasy. That they hate us only makes me think better of us, and it is paramount that we not we not try to alter ourselves to please them. Yes they have specific complaints about our troops on Muslim holy lands (holy lands? what a joke) and other such things but this is the present incarnation of a struggle that has gone on for centuries and their hatred is symptomatic of a mentality that cannot tolerate the existence on equal terms of difference. That they hate us we should take as a sign that we have accomplished something good and in the face of that threat be more rigorous in saving what we have and not resorting to this.

The looming transformation of Turkey

When I was a student in Glasgow there was much talk among the European students of whether they believed Turkey should be allowed to join the EU. Most of them opposed its membership and from all the data I have seen so do the majority of Europeans, thinking it is not traditionally part of Europe, too much a home of Islamic fundamentalism, an unrepentant perpetrator of genocide against the Armenians, and antagonistic to the Greeks. However, as an officially secular nation with a large population Turkey thought itself suitable.

Now that their bid for membership has been blocked and faded from view the Islamist party seems poised to take power and undo many of the secular principles on which Ataturk founded the republic. This is, needless to say, not good. Turkey is a country with a population of over 71 million and until now has been a friend to the US. If Turkey is lost to Islamic radicalism a vital strategic ally in the region is lost and another large Mid East state may eventually go the way of Iran. The need for a war of ideas against Islamism has never looked more pressing.

Romney and Keith Ellison

Keith Ellison stirred up controversy back in January by requesting that he be sworn in on the Koran instead of the Bible, and in turn Dennis Prager stirred up more controversy by claiming he shouldn't be allowed to. Well I don't think he should either but then again I have the undoubtedly insane-in-the-eyes-of-Christianists belief that a politician should swear his oath only on the Constitution but that is just me.

I am wondering whether Romney will wish to be sworn in on the Book of Mormon and whether that will attract the same criticism. He undoubtedly won't. He has said that atheists should not be elected to political office and that only a person of faith should occupy the presidency. Apparently though it doesn't matter a stitch to Romney what that faith actually is as shown by his annoyance at being questioned on his religious beliefs. Well screw him I say. He has categorically labeled an entire group of people as unfit for office because of their beliefs. He is entirely fair game for vetting based on his.

If elected I have no doubt he will be sworn in on the Bible and claim he has no problem with it. After all he is plenty willing to abandon any number of beliefs to please the public. But i would just love to see the explosion of theocratic fury if a pol ever asked to be sworn in on the Constitution and not the Bible. Is the Constitution an unfit document not reflective of American values? Is it subordinate to the Bible? They would be compelled to say such things or remain silent. Michael Newdow should bring a lawsuit.

How will Mormons react if he does use the Bible?