Islam: What Will You Not Say?

The Erosion of Free Speech

Although the headline of the June 8th article in the Daily Times of Pakistan read “Pakistan to ask EU to amend laws on freedom of expression,” the request from high-level government officials was in reality a threat. The six-person Pakistani delegation was set to deliver a warning that unless blasphemy against Islam stopped, terrorist attacks against European assets could escalate. Their cited example was the suicide bomb attack this June 2 on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan in which eight people died and 27 were injured as a result of possible renewed backlash to the 2005 publication of 12 editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammed.

Islamabad informed the European Union countries that the backlash to perceived insults to the “religion of peace” could jeopardize “inter-religious harmony” and result in uncontrollable attacks on other diplomatic missions abroad. A high-level delegation representing the Pakistani government was to travel to Brussels to further warn EU officials of the liabilities of free expression.

This apocryphal grandstanding, in which Islamabad seeks to eradicate free speech and reclassify it as an offensive hate crime, is part and parcel of the insidious Islamic effort to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate under shariah law. Paradoxically, in most of the Muslim world, the right of free speech is nonexistent. Verbal and physical attacks on non-Muslims are rampant, as is death for apostates, terrorism training for youth, hate indoctrination of non-Muslims in mosques and schools and the oppression of Christians, Hindus and Jews. But Muslims feel free to use democratic precepts in the service of their own radical ideology to, ultimately, overthrow liberty, eliminate individual rights and destroy freedoms in Western societies. They seek prohibitions on free expression to strengthen Islam, pave the way toward Islamization and keep the Western public ill informed and unaware of potential threats to the democratic way of life. By couching this effort as merely the elimination of offensive speech, they conceal their true goal of undermining the laws of Western societies, specifically the very foundation of democracy – free speech.

This goal was dramatically illustrated in March of 2008, when the 57 Muslim states that make up the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) struck a blow against free speech by successfully forcing through the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (UNHRC) an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression. The amendment, requiring extensive changes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, officially characterizes as abuse and an act of religious discrimination any criticism of Islam. It also calls for the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to report any individuals and news media issuing negative comments about Islam.

In June, this limitation on free speech was further underscored when representatives of two non-governmental organizations sought to address stonings, honor killings and female genital mutilation sanctioned under shariah law. As part of the effort to mute criticism of Islam, the Egyptian UNHRC delegate demanded that the speakers be silenced, proclaiming, “Islam will not be crucified in this Council.”

Thus, banned from UNHRC sessions is criticism of shariah laws that oppress women, condemn homosexuals and threaten converts and non-Muslims. Also banned are statements against Islamic law-sanctioned child marriage, honor killings, the hanging of homosexuals and the murder of apostates.

The United Nations is not the only front where Islamic gag orders are in place. Canada’s Human Rights Act….

Be sure to read more (if not all) of the full article.

HT: Persecution.org

Adrift Down the Tubes

Three news items for you to chew on.

Most Americans Say Divorce is Morally Acceptable

A record 70 percent of Americans believe divorce is morally acceptable, according to Gallup’s 2008 Values and Beliefs survey. That’s an 11-point increase from seven years ago.

[…]

Of the poll’s 16 ethical issues rated for moral acceptability, divorce topped the list, followed by gambling, embryonic stem-cell research, homosexuality and abortion. Extramarital affairs — often a cause of divorce — are at the bottom of the list, with just 7 percent of Americans finding them morally acceptable.

By what moral law and standard do my fellow Americans make this judgment? (At 70%, that includes a lot of real — as well as nominal — Christians. Wow!)

And why does that moral law and standard make extramarital affairs so unacceptable?

OK, here’s the second story:

Boston Doctor Offers Sex Change Treatment to Kids

Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric specialist at the hospital, has launched a clinic for transgendered kids — boys who feel like girls, girls who want to be boys — and he’s opening his doors to patients as young as 7.

So Doc Spack is catching lots of flak. I wonder if it’s coming from any in the 70% mentioned above. And why.

Now from the Mail Online (UK), the third story:

Fathers aren’t needed say MPs: Commons decides IVF babies can do without a male role model

Fathers were last night effectively declared an irrelevance in modern Britain.

The requirement for fertility doctors to consider a child’s need for a male role model before giving women IVF treatment was scrapped by MPs.

In a free vote, they swept away the rule despite impassioned pleas that the Government plan would “drive another nail into the coffin of the traditional family”.

Labour rebels said it would send entirely the wrong signal to society as Britain faces a crisis in responsible parenting. The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, had warned it would remove the father from the heart of the family.

Food Fight (and More)!

In Hong Kong:

A transatlantic row on food aid boiled over and anti-globalisation protesters clashed with police on Tuesday as troubled trade talks got under way in Hong Kong.

Tension between the United States and the 25-nation European Union burst into the open as the meeting got under way, with European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson calling for “radical reform” to the U.S. system of food aid for developing nations.

Meanwhile, another marriage chapter begins to open in the US and Canada (and elsewhere also, no doubt:

“Polygamy rights is the next civil rights battle.” So goes the motto of a Christian pro-polygamy organization that has been watching the battle over homosexual “marriage” rights with keen interest.

Oh, and speaking of marriage, here’s a story from Northern Africa somewhere:

Four American women — a missionary named Molly*, a journeyman named Susan* and two volunteers — sit among a dozen or so African prostitutes in a circle of mismatched chairs and a couch. They all listen intently as the Old Testament story of Joseph and Potiphar plays from a cassette. From the hall outside comes the sound of Molly’s toddler, Joshua*, playing with African friends.

In a home across town, Molly’s husband, Mike*, pulls dishes from the cabinet and sets out two pans of lasagna to thaw, getting ready for the evening’s house church. Christopher*, the couple’s 3-year-old, throws a ball outside with a neighbor.

And while we’re focused on family, some public school parents may have had a rude awakening in Hillsboro County, Florida:

In a districtwide survey, nearly half of high school students and one in five middle school students said they have had sexual intercourse, and a higher percentage of high school boys than girls reported being physically hurt by their “significant others.”

Before we leave Florida, there’s this from West Palm Beach:

They could be called the other “anti-abortion” photographs, if photographer J. Scott Kelly could stomach those words for only a moment.

Instead of trying to persuade people not to do something with what he describes as gruesome “shock and awe” pictures plastered on buses and the like, Kelly decided last spring that he wanted to sway expectant mothers from abortion by exhibiting the tenderness of parenthood in poster-sized black-and-white studio portraits.

North Carolina is (back?) in the ACLU crosshairs:

In an effort to end the Bible’s monopoly on the swearing-in procedure in the courtroom, the American Civil Liberties Union is now suing the state of North Carolina.

A lawsuit has been filed in Superior Court in Wake County, N.C., on behalf of the organization’s statewide membership of approximately 8,000 individuals of many different faiths, including Islam and Judaism.

And in a Florida courtroom:

For a third time, a court dismissed claims in a lawsuit against Jews for Jesus prompted by a woman who complained she was defamed when the group called her a “Jewish believer” in its newsletter.

This time, Florida State Circuit Court Judge Edward Fine in West Palm Beach dismissed the entire $1 million suit with prejudice, meaning none of the claims can be re-filed.

And in a courtroom in San Diego:

A federal judge on Monday lifted the final legal barrier to completing a border fence meant to thwart illegal immigrants in the southwestern corner of the U.S. The project comprises 14 miles of additional fencing in San Diego.

And in El Paso, Texas, today . . . .

Two national presidents set off an explosion that diverted the Rio Grande, reshaping the U.S.-Mexican border and ending a century-old dispute. President Johnson and Mexican President Gustavo Diaz Ordaz. In 1964.

Further away (I assume), in Adwar, Iraq . . .

Saddam Hussein was captured by U.S. forces while hiding in a hole — two years ago today.

And in Los Angeles, Tookie Williams finished his 26 years (or so) in prison. He left San Quentin a little over seven hours ago. Lying down. In plain sight of a few people. I wonder what he is learning wherever he arrived after that.


“Laughed as he told his friends
how the victim gurgled as he lay dying”

I spent way, way, way too much time at this! 🙁

Above all, love God!