In Praise Of Soldiers # 2--A Book Review

REJOICE!!!---That the USA can still raise up the types of military personnel (Especially senior NCOs and mid-range, Captain to Colonel, officers described in that book---Who do much, much, more to preserve peace in this world and to bring credit to the USA than all of the “cookie pushers” employed by “Foggy Bottom” (ie The State Department).

Kaplan, Robert D.
Imperial Grunts---The American Military on the Ground
Random House; New York; 2005

This book very clearly lays out the reasons for my commands that you rejoice through the author's reports on his travels throughout the world, to those places where our troops are making a difference or, most certainly, attempting to do so as to gaining allies, fighting terrorists, defining the real enemies of Western Civilization (ie Islam), and generally doing good for the our sake and that of all other, civilized, peoples.

The troops (One ex-Coast Guard) described by Mr. Kaplan would be recognized by St. Bernard ***(Who lived when the first Crusaders were trying to take back what had been illegally and illicitly taken by Muslim thieves and aggressors) and by any real student of history as the new, devoted, disciplined, right-thinking and right-acting Crusaders of this Age.

This book should be read by: All of our nations military leaders and by those civil officials concerned with the military and with “foreign affairs”; By all editors, reporters, columnists and commentators who deal with those subjects; By all “peaceniks”, so called “religious leaders” and others who so shamelessly criticize our troops; And, by everyone else who wishes to feel thankful for the efforts of those best of our citizens who so reliably serve in our armed forces (I exclude the military bureaucrats and “political generals and admirals who are money wasting “time servers”).

*** Please see the “In Praise Of Soldiers # !” just previously on this blog.

In Praise Of Soldiers # 1--Of Ancient Days

This is the first of (At least) two entries "In Praise Of Soldiers"; That is soldiers who meet the highest standards of morality and personal excellence. This, first entry, is many hundreds-of-years old and refers to the (Then) new, Order Of The Temple (Templars), a military order of monks which later fell to the greed of secular rulers and the corruption of some in the Catholic Church.

DE LAUDE NOVAE MILITAE

“IN PRAISE OF THE NEW KNIGHTHOOD”--INTRODUCTION:: This work was written by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux one of the few declared “Doctors of the Church” in the year of our Lord, 1129 and was addressed to the first Master General of the Military Order of Templars. Although almost 1,000-years old, this document can still speak to us at a time when the Churches and Peoples of God are under external and internal attack by those who would destroy them and leave only a desolation of moral and intellectual emptiness as is the apparent goal of the Evil One.

THE AUTHOR AND HIS AUTHORITY: Saint Bernard was born in 1070 and died in August, 1153. As a “Doctor of the Church” his writings have great weight in the definitions of what is the correct view of the Church and its teachings. It applies to all Christians in all subsequent times, especially those under attack by the followers of that false pseudo-prophet Mohamed.

DE LAUDE NOVAE MILITAE-THEN: This work addressed the spiritual direction of what was then a new order of knights, the Templars, who were pristine in their commitment to the Church and their willingness to physically protect it in the Holy Land. If that Order became corrupt at a later date (The downfall of the Templars may have been caused by the greed of a French king and jealousy within the Church), that does not detract from the teachings of St. Bernard and the value of such knighthood in 1129AD; And for all who are, formally or informally, knights who protect us from evil, even to this time..This direction was specially needed after the misbehavior of some crusaders in both Constantinople and in the Holy Land.

DE LAUDE NOVAE MILITAE—NOW AND IN THE FUTURE: At the very least and at this time the Church is being attacked by external enemies, generally “muslims”, in the Sudan, the Philippines and in other places. Many of those who support the teachings of the Koran and the Hadith are attacking (Directly or by giving active support to those who do) all civilization every where, even in “islamic” nations. This is not a new conflict as those who follow the teachings of that false and pernicious prophet Mohamed have, for more than 1400-years, have continued their adherence to the Koran's commands for aggressive war (Jihad) against all others and, thereby, work the evil of retail murder, genocide, rape, pillage, the destruction of cultures and the social, political, legal and economic subjugation of those not “muslims” and of all women.

It seems reasonable that we need a new military order of knights who will have that same commitment as did the early Templars and will follow the teachings of St. Bernard as to the proper way in which to be knights and to “fight the good fight”. Why?

Because, with the exception of too few in the USA and even fewer in other places, no one in this world is willing to declare the truth about the danger of “islam” (Perhaps motivated to silence by Arab controlled oil or pathological pacifism or “political correctness” or (Like France} a large and aggressive “muslim” community or a hate of the Churches' moral teachings (Which teachings confront their self-centered, fragile and meaningless senses-of-self-worth).

Therefore, we now require some organized force or agreeable class of unorganized persons who will defend the Churches of God and civilization from such attacks as now exist and have existed for almost 1500-years.

What then did Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church, write about the proper way of being a Christian knight?

SAINT BERNARD'S STATEMENTS: I have reviewed the translation of De Laude Novae Militae available to me, edited out those parts which were specific to only the time in which they were wrote, made slightly free with the translation (To suit modern usage) and am left with the following, given as if there were such a new military order in this time and already at work in this world, especially the Middle East.

“It seems that a New Knighthood has recently appeared on the earth, and precisely in that part of it, the Orient (nb The Middle East), in which He visited from on high in the flesh. As He then troubled the princes of darkness in the strength of His Mighty Hand,so there he now wipes out their followers, the
children of disbelief, scattering them by the hands of His mighty ones. ... Thisis, I say, a new kind of knighthood and one unknown to the ages gone by. It ceaselessly wages a twofold war both against flesh and blood and against a spiritual army of evil ....Go forth confidently then, you knights, and repel the foes of the cross of Christ with a stalwart heart. Know that neither death nor life can separate you from the love of God which is in Jesus Christ; And in every peril repeat, “Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.” What a glory to return from in victory from such a battle! How blessed to die there as a
martyr! Rejoice, brave athlete! If you live and conquer in the Lord; But, glory and exult even more if you die and join your Lord. Life indeed is a fruitful thing and victory is glorious, but a holy death is more important than either. If they are blessed who die in the Lord, how much more are they blessed who die
for the Lord! ....Indeed, danger or victory for a Christian depends on the dispositions of his heart and not on the fortunes of war. If he fights for a good reason, the issue of his fight can never be evil; And, likewise, the results can never be considered good if the reason were evil and the intentions perverse. If you happen to be killed while you are seeking only to kill another, you die a murderer. If you succeed, and by your will to overcome and to conquer you perchance kill a man, you live a murderer. Not it will not do to be a murderer, living or dead, victorious or vanquished. What an unhappy victory---To have conquered a man while yielding to vice and to indulge in an empty glory at his fall when wrath and pride have gotten the better of you. ...

But, the Knights of Christ may safely fight the battles of their Lord, fearing either sin if they smite the enemy, nor danger at their own death, since to inflict death or the die for Christ is no sin, but rather, an abundant claim to glory. In the first case, one gains for Christ, and in the second, on gains Christ Himself. The Lord freely accepts the death of the foe who has offended Him, and yet more freely gives Himself for the consolation of the fallen knight.

The knights of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear his sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller; But, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. ... When he inflicts death it is for Christ's profit and when he suffers death, it is for his own gain. The Christian glories in the death of the pagan (nb At that time, “muslims” were considered pagans), because
Christ is glorified ....

I do not mean to say that the pagans are to be slaughtered when there is any other way to prevent them from harassing and persecuting the faithful, but only that it now seems better to destroy them than evil should come to their just and that the righteous be tempted into wrongdoing (i.e. Converting to
“islam” for economic or social or status reasons OR by force?).

What then? If it is never permissible for a Christian to strike with the sword, why did the Savior's precursor (nb St. John the Baptist) bid the soldiers to be content with their pay, and not forbid them to follow their calling? ...

Thus when the transgressors of divine law have been expelled, the righteous nation that keeps the truth may enter in security. Certainly it is proper that nations who love war should be scattered, and those who trouble us should be cut off and that all the workers of iniquity should be dispersed .... Let both words (Emphasis added; Probably a reference to: Luke 22: 35-38) of the faithful fall upon the necks of the foe, in order to destroy every high thing exalting itself against the knowledge of God, which is the Christian faith ....”

FURTHER COMMENTS: The language of this document is, by modern standards, very elaborate and convoluted. Much of this document applies only to the time in which it was written and to the Jerusalem and Templars of that time.

However, much of the teaching applies to all ages and to the use of military force by Christians. If the Christian warrior avoids pride, vengeance and other like weaknesses and battles only for justice, for the punishment of evildoers and for the protection of innocents (e.g. Christians in “islamic” nations), then killing incidental to such noble activities is not sinful and is not murder.

The calm, without-hate, professional and focused waging of war by the forces of the USA, Poland, the UK and a few other nations in Iraq and Afghanistan appear to generally meet the standards set by this noted Doctor of the Church. The reflective person might compare such knightly waging of war with the emotional, hateful, vengeful and assassin-like behaviors of such organizations as Hitler's SS {Einsatzgruppen}, Serbian genocidists, Latin American death squads, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbullah, Black September, the insane persons who follow Osama bin Laden, those who directed the Iraq-Iran war of a few years ago and too many others to name.

If the modern, Christian, knight now serves under the flag of a secular nation, it does not matter. If such a knight serves privately, it does not matter. What does matter is service up to the standards set by St. Bernard and what is in the mind and heart of every such knightly person.

I note that those who, in Iraq, did not come up to these standards are being punished.

Although St. Bernard questions the propriety of killing to defend ones self, the Catechism Of The Catholic Church declares the ultimate right to self-defense and the duty to defend others to be proper and does not put excessive limits on the use of force to do so; And, by extension and so as to not make that teaching meaningless, on the access to effective and individual weapons when the civil authorities cannot provide effective and immediate protection.

Of course, such a knighthood as is described above cannot flourish in an unjust society (This lack may have been at the base of the failure of the Templars and of the Crusades of ancient times). Therefore, our posited and new knighthood must look to their own society as to instilling justice and morality. By preference, this should be done by the persuasion of others to just and moral ways OR by prayer OR by political and economic actions. Lacking success by those means, other methods may be required.

CREDITS: The translation, of De Laude Novae Militae, used can be found at the “ORB Online Encyclopedia”. No copyright notices was seen at that site. In any case, this essay is a “fair use” of that material.

This essay is not copyrighted and way be used as the reader sees fit.

HABEMUS GLADII DUO
DEUS VULT

The Fall Of Europe & Why

The reader is refered to "The Second Fall Of Spain" and "1492---A Very Good Year" which are also found in this blog.

From Front Page Magazine Of 21 September 2005
The following is an article written by a Spanish journalist,
Sebastian Villar Rodriguez.

Europe died in Auschwitz

I was walking along Raval (Barcelona) when all of a sudden I
understood that Europe died with Auschwitz. We assassinated 6 million Jews in order to end up bringing in 20 million Muslims!

We burnt in Auschwitz the culture, intelligence and power to create.
We burnt the people of the world, the one who is proclaimed the
chosen people of God. Because it is the people who gave to humanity the symbolic figures
who were capable of changing history (Christ, Marx, Einstein,
Freud...) and who is the origin of progress and wellbeing.

We must admit that Europe, by relaxing its borders and giving in
under the pretext of tolerance to the values of a fallacious
cultural relativism, opened it's doors to 20 million Muslims, often
illiterates and fanatics that we could meet, at best, in places
such as Raval, the poorest of the nations and of the ghettos, and
who are preparing the worst, such as the 9/11 and the Madrid
bombing and who are lodged in apartment blocs provided by the social
welfare.

We also have exchanged culture with fanaticism, the capacity to
create with the will to destroy, the wisdom with the superstition.
We have exchanged the transcendental instinct of the Jews, who even
under the worst possible conditions have always looked for a better
peaceful world, for the suicide bomber. We have exchanged the pride
of life for the fanatic obsession of death. Our death and that of our
children.

What a grave mistake that we made!!!

Clarification Of Judicial Actions

THE ARTICLE BELOW IS A "SENDING" , ALTHOUGH UNEXPECTED, AS TO MY CRY FOR HELP IN UNDERSTANDING THE COURTS.

September 19, 2005, 8:40 a.m.
Clarifying “Extremism”
It’s more than just politics.

By Stephen Markman

Senate Democrats have warned the president to avoid sending them "extremist" judges. While there is considerable room for debate as to how best to identify truly "extremist" candidates, a starting point might be to focus on those nominees who are most inclined to disregard the admonition of Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review, that the role of the judge is to say what the law is rather than what it ought to be. For, if there is any aspect that is central to the proper exercise of the judicial power, it is respect for the separation of powers and an appreciation of the distinction between the judicial and legislative roles in a tripartite government.

While there are few judges who ever expressly assert their disregard for the words of the lawmaker (whether that lawmaker be Congress, a state legislature, a county commission, or simply the parties to a contract), such disregard is often effectively achieved through a variety of alternative, less noticeable means. Therefore, to assist the Senate in assessing “extremist” tendencies in judicial nominees, I offer for consideration several of the more prominent rhetorical devices that often cloak judicial fiats. Senators may wish to examine the prior opinions of nominees in order to assess their propensity for employing devices like the following, with the purpose of replacing the policy choices of the lawmaker with those of the judge.

Spirit of the Law: Where the actual language of the law is incompatible with the policy preferences of a judge, it is not uncommon for a judge to claim that the “spirit of the law” nonetheless compels the preferred result. A judge may invoke such a “spirit” as a basis for decision-making as if somehow, via this necromancy, that which is not within the law may be conjured into it. Opinions relying upon a "spirit," nowhere incorporated in the actual language of the law, should be scrutinized carefully.

Balancing: The process of “balancing” rights and interests is predominantly a legislative, not a judicial, function. When, in the course of interpreting the law, a judge purports to engage in a “balancing” determination, more often than not he has misconstrued one of the allegedly-competing rights or interests. Concluding that one interest or right is entitled to a 30-percent weight, instead of a 70-percent weight in the “balancing” process not only constitutes an essentially standard-less, legislative decision, but it also implicitly concedes that neither of the rights or interests established by the lawmaker will be accorded full respect.

Public Policy: A judge will often resort to “public policy” as a basis for disregarding the words of the law. Unless such policy is grounded in the actual words of some law, this is simply another way for a judge to replace the determination of the lawmaker with his own determination of what the law ought to be. The most reliable basis for ascertaining “public policy” is for a judge not to examine his own sense of conscience, but to examine the principle repository of such policies in a democratic society, the actual enactments of representative, public bodies.

Equity: A judge may sometimes speak of “equity” as a basis for rendering a decision incompatible with the language of the law. While there is a longstanding body of Anglo-American law that is grounded in the concept of equity, it is nonetheless a body of law. “Equity” should not be invoked simply to enable a judge to override the words of the law and achieve a preferred result. Equity understood broadly as the power generally to do “good” things, and to avoid the consequences of the law when the results are not as the judge prefers, is an equity in which the rule of law is subordinated to the rule of individual lawyers in robes.

Ambiguity: While the law is sometimes truly ambiguous, it is not as ambiguous as some judges often find it to be so. The consequences of finding a law to be ambiguous, rather than striving through the use of time-honored interpretative tools and techniques to determine the better meaning of a law, is that some judges end up believing themselves to be empowered to give their own meaning to the law. The conclusion that a law is “ambiguous” should be a final resort, not one undertaken with haste so that a judge can impart his own meaning to that law.

Broad Construction: When a judge announces that a law is to be construed “broadly” or “liberally” (or “narrowly” or “conservatively”), his analysis should be scrutinized closely. For it is the role of the judge generally to interpret the words of the law “reasonably.” When a judge purports to interpret the law by some alternative standard, it is reasonable to inquire why judicial thumbs are being placed on one side or the other of the scales of justice.

Legislative History: While there is a legitimate, albeit limited, role for reliance upon “legislative history” in the interpretation of statutes, excessive reliance upon legislative history may simply be a means by which the words of the lawmaker are replaced or modified by a “history” that was never enacted into law. This is an especially questionable endeavor when it is recognized that there are usually multiple legislative histories that can be picked from by a judge intent on reaching a particular result. Is the “legislative history” of a statute derived from the testimony of a legislative witness, from a committee report, from the statement of a single legislator on the floor, or from a colloquy among two or three legislators?

While there can be no purely mechanical process for evaluating judicial nominees — any more than there can be a mechanical process for judging — an intelligent and thoughtful assessment of judicial opinions invoking these rhetorical devices is a far better starting point in assessing genuinely “extremist” nominees than, for example, calculating judicial “batting averages” or identifying “politically-incorrect” decisions on matters of high public profile. (“Isn’t it true, Judge Bork, that your opinions favored environmental defendants 69.3 percent of the time?”) If there can be no consensus that a judge who fails to give faithful meaning to the words of the lawmaker is acting beyond his authority, then there can be no consensus as to who is acting as an “extremist.”

— Stephen Markman is a justice on the Michigan supreme court. He served as assistant attorney general under Ronald Reagan, during which time he was responsible for the federal judicial selection process.

Comments Welcomed !

I am a technological "loss" and failed to note or know that this blog was NOT set up for comments. IT IS NOW!

You are encouraged to make comments. After very many years of marriage and three children with well developed "critical abilities" I have developed a "thick skin"! Whatever you have to write I have been the subject of worse.

The Right To Keep & Bear Arms

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the USA and Article-25 (Section-1) of Wisconsin's Constitution both grant to the People the "right to keep and bear arms"---Notwithstanding the actions of the Courts which have castrated this right of the Citizens.

Finally a definitive legal argument has been, in defense of that right, published by the office of the Attorney General of the USA, TO WIT: WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT: The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States restricted to persons serving in militias.

Although long and very "legal", it should be read and studied by: All members of the Congress;
All Federal Judges; All other legislators and judges; The President of the USA and all Governors of the "Several States"; All law professors and newspaper editors; And, anyone interested in this subject.

Typing in the title above, in any good "search engine" should allow you to access it.

Those interested in this subject should also look to the site put out by "Keep And Bear Arms".

Please remember that the Second Amendment is the Constitution's way of enforcing the restof the Bill Of Rights!!!

nb This blog site does not allow me to enter e-mail addresses.

Help Me Understand The Courts !!!

PLEASE HELP ME !!! I do not understand the decisions of the Supreme Court of The USA and other courts.

First a “right to privacy” exists to allow a woman to have someone murder her unborn child---Although not such “right” is noted in the Constitution of the USA or in the writings of the founders of this nation and the authors of that Constitution and its Bill-of-Rights. But, no such right to privacy appears to prevent the FBI from making searches, without a judge's approved and issued warrant, even though the Constitution calls for such warrants and the writings of our Founding Fathers are full of concerns about that subject.

The Court(s) have supported something called “the separation of church and state” (Based on a private letter of Thomas Jefferson and ignoring the fact that the “non-establishment clause” was originally included in the Bill-Of-Rights to protect those states (ex-colonies) who had an established church from some over-powering, national, church as had England). Those same courts ignore the neighboring “free exercise of religion” and “free speech” provisions and will not protect groups of citizens who wish to exercise those rights by their erecting or placing religious statements (eg The Ten Commandments) in public places or on civic coats-of-arms without making them meaningless, as free speech and free exercise of religious expression, by drowning them in a sea of secular symbols. (The courts appear to be using such rulings in making Atheism or “Secular Humanism” the “Established Church Of The United States Of America”)

“Freedom Of Speech” was well established in our Constitution and Laws until the Supreme Court declared, in supporting the McCain-Feingold law, that it may be severely limited for certain periods before elections---When, such speech is most necessary and should be as free as is possible.

“Freedom Of The Press” is strongly protected in our Constitution and Laws---Unless the reporter is a student at a public school.

Protection against racial and other “class-based” discrimination is illegal---Unless the victim is Male or White/Oriental.

Even in Wisconsin, its Supreme Court took a very clear Constitutional Amendment (Section-1, Article-25), as approved by the People and with very clear language as to the People's right to keep and bear arms and subjected it to the type of “up is down, black is white, war is peace, good is evil” analysis as found in the novel 1984 and, by such judicial tyranny, destroyed the intent of the People.

Can anyone explain these contradictions to me?

HELP !!!

ACLU Vs. America---A Book Review

The ACLU vs. America Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values	Book Review
by Alan Sears and Craig Osten
Review by Chris Banescu (archive) September 12, 2005

In The ACLU vs. America, authors Alan Sears and Craig Osten argue that despite its carefully cultivated image as a defender of individual "rights" and advocate for "the people," the American Civil Liberties Union stands for intellectual elitism, hypocrisy, and a blatant disregard for democratic processes. The ACLU, write Sears and Osten, want "one set of rules for itself" and the ability to dictate "other rules for everyone else." These malevolent and destructive traits are not a new development in the history of the ACLU, but represent the dominant characteristics of its members. The book focuses on key cases and positions the ACLU has supported and promoted in order to drastically affect the American cultural landscape and impose the extreme views of its members on the rest of the country. One of the great myths about the ACLU is that it "started out as a good, pro-America, pro-liberty organization that somehow got off the track." Nothing could be farther from the truth. From its very foundation the mission of the ACLU was well defined by its founder, Roger Baldwin: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class… Communism is the goal." The ACLU vs. America reveals countless instances where the ACLU has taken contradictory positions concerning fundamental rights and liberties. The common thread that emerges from these situations is a brazen hypocrisy and erratic twisting of legal standards in order to reshape American social structure to fit the militant, perverted, and atheistic philosophy of its radical members. Note Sears and Osten, the ACLU seeks a secularized America "with little or no public vestige left of religious faith and the traditional family." On one hand, the ACLU vigorously defends the constitutional rights of child pornography distributors, despite the fact that the recorded acts represent serious, heinous, and vicious crimes against innocent children. Sears and Osten document the ACLU's reasoning: "all such material, once created, is fully protected by the First Amendment. ... No government should be allowed to limit the distribution of child pornography between 'consenting adults.'" Worse still, the ACLU also supports the rights of perverse organizations like the North American Man/Boy Love Association to post "web pages that provide advice on how to seduce and rape young boys." For those unfamiliar with this group, NAMBLA is known to teach "their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among members with the purpose of having sex with them." On the other hand, the same ACLU then uses "its huge war chest ... to wage an unrelenting war against any public expression of religious faith but in particular Christianity and Orthodox Judaism." It has the audacity to sue public officials to force them to remove Nativity scenes and Christmas trees from most public areas, remove crosses and plaques quoting Bible passages from national parks, censor any mention of God in any public discourse, and strong-arm school administrators with misleading and threatening letters demanding the censorship of Christmas carols from school activities and the word Christ from any student speeches. Remember, communism is the stated "goal." While its founder stated that the ACLU is a "private organization" that is "like a church" in which "you don't take nonbelievers," such privileges are not afforded to other organizations that dare to honor God and uphold traditional Judeo-Christian values, like the Boy Scouts of America. The ACLU has undertaken a relentless legal war against the Boy Scouts for daring to "not allow those who openly practice homosexual behavior to be Scoutmasters for teenage boys" and promoting a family friendly and God-honoring and respecting environment. Under the guise of diversity and tolerance, the ACLU has been advancing a comprehensive process of indoctrinating and brainwashing school-aged children into accepting and embracing the homosexual agenda. While claiming that the Constitution "does not mention the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children," the ACLU has blatantly ignored and overridden parental rights to direct and control the education and upbringing of their children. In California, the ACLU boldly undermined parental authority by requiring mandatory attendance of school children in "tolerance-building and diversity education programs" rife with homosexual propaganda and misinformation. As Sears and Osten note, the ACLU "positions itself as the great defender of rights, [but] is against the right of parents not to allow their children to participate in assemblies and curricula that actively undermine and ridicule their religious beliefs." Such violations of individual rights are perfectly acceptable according to ACLU's twisted logic and hypocritical stance. As such, the traditional American values of faith, family, and morality are labeled by the ACLU as "extreme," while the extreme positions and organizations it embraces are labeled as "tolerant" and "diverse." Finally, the ACLU's "long history of advancing unrestricted access to abortion, right up to the moment of live birth," its vigorous and uncompromising defense of partial-birth abortion with no limitations, and its latest enthusiastic embrace of euthanasia represent some of the most illogical, dangerous and deadly positions the organization has taken. The ACLU's strategy is simple: "challenge every statute restricting reproductive freedom," attack all legislation that tries to restrict partial-birth abortions by trotting out the bogus "health of the mother" argument, and search out sympathetic judges to help bypass the will of the voters and strike down any regulations that attempt to limit this barbaric and murderous practice. And don't forget to label anyone that dares to disagree as a "right-wing, religious fanatic." Clearly, the ACLU has not learned from history. Its position on human life, write Alan Sears and Craig Osten, "is dangerous to all individuals, no matter what stage in life." It has even prompted former ACLU members like Eleanor Smith, "who is confined to a wheelchair because of childhood polio," to boldly state: "At this point I would rather have a right-wing Christian decide my fate than an ACLU member." The most dangerous and ominous aspects of the ACLU's strategies, write Sears and Osten, is their support in creating a "nation that sees all values as relative, with no moral absolutes." To achieve those ends this institution will say and do anything (often taking the exact opposite position on issues) in order to re-shape American society into its own vision. Patently offensive and discriminatory practices that violate the religious liberties and free speech right of individuals are tolerated, while the extreme and dangerous beliefs of a tiny minority are fully defended and promoted. Sears and Osten correctly remind us of what we have already witnessed as a result of ACLU's malice and prejudice: "Public school officials are afraid to say, "Merry Christmas,"… for fear of an ACLU lawsuit. Many people are afraid to talk openly and publicly about their sincerely held religious beliefs in their workplaces because of fear of legal action against them." That sounds more like communism than democracy. Luckily, there is hope and some much needed light at the end of this dark tunnel. The Alliance Defense Fund, an organization headed by Alan Sears, is dedicated to the "defense of religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and traditional values." The ADF has been able to effectively challenge the ACLU and in many instances reverse the damage done by its radical and unconstitutional agenda. The ADF is committed and ready to help educate "pastors, along with school and public officials, on the legal misinformation spread by the ACLU and provide them with solid legal resources to stand up to the ACLU's intimidation tactics." Thank goodness the good guys finally have an advocate.

Islam & Humanism VS. Civilization & Culture

(nb--What this author writes about "pure Islam" is reflected in other places in this blog. HOWEVER, the "secular humanists" desire to remove all religion from the public sector is much the same as the "pure Islamic" movement. This is because the Christianity has been the well source of most of the real culture and creativity in our Civilization. Therefore, both Islam and "Militant" Secular Humanism are the deadly foes of creativity, culture and civilization.)


THIS ARTICLE IS FROM THE AMERICAN THINKER
(On line) of 13 September 2005

Cultural genocide in the name of Islam
September 13th, 2005

The Islamic Republic of Iran has renewed its war of destruction on Persian antiquities. Its intention is to build up an Islamic empire and to change the whole face of Iran into a backward purely Islamic nation. The Islamic Republic of Oran sees its Persian heritage as a formidable enemy of its conquest. It aims at turning Iran into a pure form of an Islamic nation. Hence, they have waged a war on Persian antiquities in the hope of suppressing Persian pride and nationalism.

"Cultural genocide" is a term sometimes used to describe the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political or military reasons. Since its inception twenty-six years ago, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been in a state of constant war with the Iranian people as well as the Iranian heritage.

Over its life span, the Islamic Republic zealots have tried many times to cleanse the pre-Islamic Persian heritage in the name of Islam. First, they declared war against the Persian New Year or “Nowruz”, and then they attacked other Persian traditions and customs. At the beginning of the revolution, Islamic zealots rushed to the site of the Persepolis, the magnificent palace of the Achaemenid kings. Fortunately, the total bulldozing of the relics of the Palace was averted by Iranian patriots who wished to preserve their heritage.

In their latest attempt in the war of destruction, the Islamic Republic has been insidiously planning to obliterate some of the most cherished places in Persian history. They intend to eradicate the Pasargad, the Bolaghi gorge and the Persepolis. Most of all, they are obliterating the memory of one of history's great rulers, Cyrus the Great.

In Pasargad is found the tomb of Cyrus the Great, the King of Kings and the founding father of Persia. Cyrus the Great, who is mentioned twenty-five times in the Bible, is known for his passion and compassion and his unprecedented tolerance. Cyrus the Great's Charter of Human Rights is known to be the first such charter written, and refers to the concept of humans as having universal rights, regardless of legal jurisdiction, ethnicity, nationality or religion.

Cyrus the Great's most notable reputation of a great leader stands high as a Persian king who freed the Jews from captivity by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.
Cyrus the Great, not only allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild their temple, but assisted the Jews in this endeavor, something which was followed by his heirs.

Cyrus the Great proclaimed more than 2500 years ago,

"Today, I announce that everyone is free to choose a religion and free to live in all regions and take up a job provided that they never violate other's rights."

Cyrus the Great declared himself not a conqueror, but a liberator.

It has been said that Alexander the Great set the torch to Persepolis in a drunken rage, regretting it the following day. Alexander the Great plundered Persia. He destroyed and burned Persepolis, the magnificent palace complex of the Achaemenid kings. Yet, Alexander the Great paid tribute to Cyrus the Great at his tomb. This shows how much the king of kings was respected, even in the eyes of his fierce enemies. What Alexander came to set on fire to more than 2200 years ago, the Islamic Republic intends to submerge today.

In its war of construction and destruction, the Islamic Republic has been building "Sivand Dam" near the Persian antiquities. The construction of the Sivand Dam on the Polvar River began in 1992 without consultation with or the knowledge of the World Cultural Heritage Organization officials. The dam's opening was planned in March 2005, but the Iranian energy ministry has delayed it to early 2006 to give the archaeologists more time to examine the sites.

This dam will flood the entire Tang-e Bolaghi (Bolaghi Gorge) mountain pass and the surrounding region. That would lead to some 8 kilometers of the Bolaghi Gorge being submerged and lost forever. Thus, experts of ICHCTO and the Pars-e Pasargad Research Foundation quickly undertook a project to study the area. So far they have identified more than 100 archeological sites there

The Islamic Republic's ulterior motive in building "Sivand Dam" so close to the archeological sites was to intentionally flood the vast archeological area of Pasargad, including the tomb of Cyrus the Great, Bolaghi Gorge, the King's path and the main historical road of Persia, which was constructed by order of Darius of the Achaemenids and the relics of the magnificent palace of Persepolis.

Although the Islamic Republic’s records speak dismally for itself, there are numerous reasons for this cultural genocide by the Islamic regime, in Iran.
The Islamic regime's decision to destroy Cyrus the Great's tomb is due to their inner fear of the personification of Cyrus the Great in the heart of every Persian. Since Cyrus the Great released the Jews from captivity some 2500 years ago, the Islamic Republic's intense hatred of Jews has fueled their mission of destruction. Also, fear of Persian nationalism is so immense that it stands in their way of creating an Islamic Utopia. These fears are justified, especially following the news on the future release of a British movie on the life of Cyrus the Great.

Today, we are up against a truly malignant force in radical Islamism that is breeding, sheltering and financing its terrorist armory. This new enemy of humanity and world heritage is far more radical and dangerous than the Nazi Germany or the old Soviet Russia ever were. The Islamic Republic’s ultimate objective is the destruction of everything in the world that is good and leaving behind a network of Islamic terror around the free world.

Let us hope that people of the earth become united against the forces of evil and evildoers of radical Islamism. Let us hope that the free world applies pressure to the Islamic Republic to prevent them from purging the Persian heritage.

Amil Imani

Does America Have A "Muslim Problem"

Does America Have a "Muslim Problem"?
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 9, 2005

Does the United States have a “Muslim problem”? Bret Stephens and Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal say no; on the contrary, they say, “America’s Muslims tend to be role models both as Americans and as Muslims.” Stephens and Rago grant that “it takes no more than a few men (or women) to carry out a terrorist atrocity, and there can be no guarantee the U.S. is immune from homegrown Islamist terror.” However, evidently Hillary Clinton has the measure of Islamic terrorism as well as child-rearing: “But if it can be said,” Stephens and Rago continue, “that ‘it takes a village’ to make a terrorist, the U.S. enjoys a measure of safety that our European allies do not. It is a blessing we will continue to enjoy as long as we remain an upwardly mobile, assimilating — and watchful — society.”

This is an apt expression of the prevailing conventional wisdom that a lack of upward mobility and assimilation causes jihad terrorism. For Stephens and Rago base their sanguine view of American Muslims on purely economic and social factors: “59% of American Muslims have at least an undergraduate education, making them the most highly educated group in America. Muslim Americans are also the richest Muslim community in the world, with four in five earning more than $25,000 a year and one in three more than $75,000. They tend to be employed in professional fields, and most own stock, either personally or through 401(k) or pension plans. In terms of civic participation, 82% are registered to vote, half of them as Democrats. Interestingly, however, the survey found that 65% of Muslim Americans favor lowering the income tax.” Stephens and Rago report that “according to Ishan [sic] Bagby, a professor at the University of Kentucky who recently made a study of mosque attendance in Detroit, the average mosque-goer is 34 years old, married with children, has at least a bachelor’s degree, and earns about $74,000 a year. If this is representative of Muslim Americans as a whole, it suggests that the religiously committed among them hardly fit the profile of the alienated, angry young Muslim men so common today in Europe.”

On top of this affluence and civic mindedness, “the overwhelming majority of Muslims arrived here legally”; “21% of Muslim Americans intermarry”; and “Muslim Americans benefit from leaders who, despite some notable exceptions, are generally more responsible than Muslim leaders in Britain and Europe.”

Unfortunately, however, none of this data amounts to what Stephens and Rago wish it did. It is noteworthy in the first place that they invoke Ihsan Bagby’s study as evidence of the comfortable assimilation of American Muslims, since Bagby himself has rejected the notion of assimilation: “Ultimately,” he has remarked, “we [Muslims] can never be full citizens of this country. . . because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country.” He said this in the early 1990s and may have changed his views since he said this, but note that his quarrel was with American “institutions and ideologies,” not with economic injustices real or perceived.

While American Muslims may indeed be role models in their wealth and high voter registration rate, it is not at all true that only ill-educated poor people actually commit terrorist atrocities. This has been disproved again and again. A forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Marc Sageman, recently conducted a study that led him to conclude that, in the words of the Times of London, “the typical recruit to Al-Qaeda…is upper middle class, has been educated in the West and is from a professional background.” Likewise, Princeton economist Claude Berrebi studied over twenty years of data on suicide bombers from Hamas and Islamic Jihad, only to conclude, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, that “only 13 per cent” of the jihadists “were from a poor background, compared with 32 per cent of the Palestinian population in general,” and that “suicide bombers were also three times more likely to have gone on to higher education than the general population.”

We have witnessed the same phenomenon in the United States. Maher Hawash worked at Intel. He made $360,000 a year. He was in the U.S. legally — in fact, he was a naturalized citizen. I would be surprised if he had not been registered to vote. He married an American. Stephens and Rago would have confidently held him up as a role model and considered inconceivable the idea that he could turn out to be a jihad terrorist. And yet that is exactly what he turned out to be.

The WSJ article is yet another manifestation of a fundamental misunderstanding that blankets the public discourse about Islamic terrorism. Even at the Wall Street Journal they don’t understand that the primary motivation of the jihadists is a religious ideology, not resentment born of economic injustice or marginalization. Economic injustice and marginalization are things they understand; a religious ideology that can move men to give up good lives and devote themselves to murder and destruction is so far out of their purview that they cannot even imagine it, and take all the evidence of it that is in front of their faces as indications of something else.

There very likely are model citizens among American Muslims. But none of the statistics marshaled by Stephens and Rago does one thing to establish whether or not there among all these affluent and law-abiding Muslims there are people who, like Mike Hawash, are nursing jihadist sentiments.

Stephens and Rago do include a caveat: “neither a first-rate Western education nor economic affluence offers any inoculation against extremism: Just look at the careers of 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta, educated at the Technical University of Hamburg, or Daniel Pearl killer Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who did undergraduate work at the London School of Economics.” One may hope that these Wall Street Journal reporters will one day undertake to find out why Atta and Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh turned to jihad terrorism — if they aren’t too afraid of what they might find. That fear, and the general unwillingness to face the real causes of Islamic terrorism, is what constitutes America’s real “Muslim problem.”

NOTES BY JAMES PAWLAK: For an opposing point-of-view, please go to the following web site:
.

Muslim Opinions Be Dammed !!!

Before reading this item, I ask you to reflect on: The compromises made with Adolf Hitler, up t his 1 September 1939 attack on Poland; The attempted compromises with Japan, which continued even while they attacked us on 7 December 1941; And, the maxim, "THOSE WHO REFUSE TO LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT !".

"Muslim Opinion" Be Damned
By Alex Epstein
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 8, 2005

To listen to most of our foreign-policy commentators, the biggest problem facing America today -- four years after Sept. 11th -- is the fact that many Muslims are mad at us.

“Whatever one's views on the [Iraq] war,” writes a New York Times columnist, “thoughtful Americans need to consider...the bitter anger that it has provoked among Muslims around the world.” In response to Abu Ghraib, Ted Kennedy lamented, “We have become the most hated nation in the world, as a result of this disastrous policy in the prisons.” Muslim anger over America’s support of Israel, we are told, is a major cause of anti-American terrorism.

We face, these commentators say, a crisis of “Muslim opinion.” We must, they say, win the “hearts and minds” of angry Muslims by heaping public affection on Islam, by shutting down Guantanamo, by being more “evenhanded” between free Israel and the terrorist Palestinian Authority -- and certainly by avoiding any new military action in the Muslim world. If we fail to win over “Muslim opinion,” we are told, we will drive even more to become terrorists.

All of this evades one blatant truth: the hatred being heaped on America is irrational and undeserved. Consider the issue of treatment of POWs. Many Muslims are up in arms about the treatment of prisoners of war in Iraq and at Guantanamo--many of whom were captured on battlefields trying to kill Americans. Yet these same Muslims are silent about the summary convictions and torture -- real torture, with electric drills and vats of acid -- that are official policy and daily practice throughout the Middle East.

Or consider “Muslim opinion” over the U,S, handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which the United States is accused of not being “hard enough” on Israel -- a free nation with laws that protect all citizens, Jew and Arab alike -- for Israel’s supposed mistreatment of Palestinians. Yet “Muslim opinion” reveres the Palestinian Authority, a brutal dictatorship that deprives Palestinians of every basic freedom, keeps them in unspeakable poverty, and routinely tortures and executes peaceful dissenters.

So-called Muslim opinion is not the unanimous and just consensus that its seekers pretend. What is passed off as the view of all Muslims is the irrational and unjust opinion of the world's worst Muslims: Islamists and their legions of “moderate” supporters and sympathizers. These people oppose us, not because of any legitimate grievances against America, but because they are steeped in a fundamentalist interpretation of their religion, one that views America's freedom, prosperity, and pursuit of worldly pleasures as the height of depravity. They do not seek respect for the rights of the individual (Muslim or non-Muslim), they seek a world in which the rights of all are sacrificed to the dictates of Islam.

The proper response to Islamists and their supporters is to identify them as our ideological and political enemies, and dispense justice accordingly. In the case of our militant enemies, we must kill or demoralize them, especially those regimes that support terrorism and fuel the Islamist movement; as for the rest, we must politically ignore them and intellectually discredit them, while proudly arguing for the superiority of Americanism. Such a policy would make us safe, expose Islamic anti-Americanism as irrational and immoral, and embolden the better Muslims to support our ideals and emulate our ways.

President Bush, like most politicians and intellectuals, has taken the opposite approach to “Muslim opinion”: appeasement. Instead of identifying anti-American Muslims as ideological enemies to be discredited, he has appealed to their sensibilities and met their demands, e.g., sacrificing American soldiers to save Iraqi civilians and mosques. Instead of seeking to crush the Islamists by defeating the causes they fight for -- such as Islamic world domination and the destruction of Israel -- he has appeased those causes, rewarding the Palestinian terrorist jihad with a promised Palestinian state. Instead of destroying terrorist regimes that wage war against the West -- including, most notably, Iran -- he has sought their “cooperation” and even cast some as “coalition partners.”

Such measures have rewarded our enemy for waging physical and spiritual war against us. Condemn America,” they have learned, and American leaders will praise your ideals and meet your demands. Attack America via terrorist proxy, terrorist states and movements have been taught, and America will neither blame you nor destroy you, but redouble its efforts to buy your love.

Every attempt to appease “Muslim opinion” preserves, promotes, and emboldens our enemies. Every concession to angry Muslim mobs gives hope to the Islamist cause. Every day we allow terrorist regimes to exist gives their minions time to execute the next Sept. 11. America needs honest leadership with the courage to identify and defeat our enemies -- “Muslim opinion” be damned.

Free Muslims

There is an organization call "Free Muslims". I have examined their web-site and will have it added to my list of links as I think it is worth reading.

I do not think that they have made a final commitment to what they describe as their mission or function, which I this is the setting of Islam into the modern and civilized world, and will not be able to do so until such time as they: Comdemn all that is horrid and evil in the Koran, the Hadith (The sayings of Mohammed) and the Sharia (The codes of Islamic laws); And, print a "new and revised" Koran which does NOT contain all those hateful verses. (For more on this subject, please go the "True Face Of Islam" which is in the May, 2005 archives of this blog OR most of the books and articles otherwise noted in it.)

Muslims VS. Academic Freedom

INTRODUCTORY NOTES AND COMMENTS: Dr. Rubenstein is President Emeritus of the University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT.

I think the reaction he discovered was only one of many, many examples of Muslims not wanting the world to know the "dark side" of their ideology. Such reactions go even to such as the late (Murdered by a Muslim) Theo van Gogh, in the Netherlands, who "merely" exposed Islamic mis-treatment of their own women, the burning down of a French court house where a Muslim was very properly convicted of a very serious crime and sentenced to prison, and too many other examples to list here.

Althogether too many academics, journalists, religious leaders, politicians are either too afraid to note such attacks or are too"politicly correct" to do so. Therefore, all persons who rely on such for full and proper instruction, guidance and education are deprived of what is needed--Truth.

Encounter with an Angry Muslim Academic
By Richard L. Rubenstein
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 7, 2005

In the aftermath of the ritualistic near-decapitation of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam, as well as the death threats and frivolous “hate-crime” lawsuits directed against honest scholars writing about Islamic extremism, some Muslims and their western sympathizers appear determined to control, by fair means or foul, what is said and written about Islam in the West.

A first-hand example of this trend can be seen in the response to the keynote address I delivered on June 9, 2005 in Krakow, Poland at the Annual Meeting of the Public Administration Theory Network (PAT-Net), an international academic organization, in which I discussed the problems raised by the rapidly increasing number of Muslims in Europe. Some of the immigrants and their European-born descendants have made no secret of the fact that they regard their religion and culture as destined by divine ordinance to transform Europe into a Muslim-dominated imperial realm. Although many have chosen the path of integration, an unknown number have repeatedly stated that they seek to replace the western secular order with a new sacred, absolutist Islamic order.

This problem is aggravated by known demographic trends. According to the U.S. Department of State's Annual Report on International Religious Freedom 2003, more than 23 million Muslims reside in Europe, excluding Turkey. That is almost 5 percent of the population. With indigenous Europe’s declining birthrate and the increasing immigrant birthrate, many observers, including Princeton’s Bernard Lewis, anticipate a Muslim majority in Western Europe before the end of this century.

Such a monumental transformation required the active involvement of senior European officials as documented by Bat Ye’or, an internationally-recognized authority on Euro-Arab relations. She has shown that the Muslim immigration was the result of political decisions taken, more often than not, without public debate, by those same officials and their Arab counterparts in the aftermath of the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74.

The purpose of my paper was to analyze the consequences of these decisions not to offer a solution. Of the three respondents to my paper, two academics offered reasonable critiques in a civil manner. The third respondent, Professor Mohamad Al-Khadry of West Virginia University, began by revealing that he had demanded that the program committee withdraw my invitation and apologize to the Muslim community because my speech was “bigoted, racist, hate speech.” He went on to portray me as a racist whose views resembled those of Nazi scholars dealing with Jews.

Disregarding official statistics, Al-Khadry claimed that Muslims constitute only 2% of Europe's population. He complained that I had used “the works of authors and sources who have often been accused of Islamophobia,” as if any apprehension concerning Islam was out of bounds. He spoke contemptuously of Bernard Lewis and dismissed the views of Bassam Tibi of Germany’s Göttingen University and Mahmoud Ayoub of Temple University, both respected Muslim scholars, whom I cited on population issues.

His worst spleen was reserved for Bat Ye’or and MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute). He labeled Bat Ye’or a bigot, a racist, and an “Islamophobe” and attacked MEMRI as a “pro-Israel propagandist website.” Actually, MEMRI makes available in reliable text translation and subtitled streaming video what is really said and written in the mosques and media of the Middle East. MEMRI has often been attacked for its provenance but never successfully for the accuracy of its translations.

Al-Khadry concluded his rant by repeating his Nazi allegation and accusing me of using “made-up evidence” to create “a crisis of Muslim presence that could be dealt with in one of very limited ways, 1) Mass deportations, 2) Sterilization (for lack of Judeo-Christian purity, 3) Incarceration, 4) Mass Murder.”

Al-Khadry’s diatribe did not deserve the dignity of a denial. I simply told the group that if they found Al-Khadry credible, they should feel very comfortable about Europe’s future. I also suggested that they pay attention neither to me nor Al-Khadry but judge for themselves by reading Bat Ye’or and viewing MEMRI’s web site. For those interested in genuine “hate speech,” I recommended MEMRI’s translations and video presentations of the sermons of extremist Muslim preachers.

Al-Khadry’s label-and-libel technique worked. Many, perhaps most, Pat-Net members agreed with him. But later I was told that most Pat-Net professors lacked knowledge of religion and history, as professional training in the field tended to ignore these subjects. Unfortunately, absent such knowledge, academics are ill-equipped to evaluate the kind of unsupported defamations that are a major component in the propaganda weaponry of people like Al-Khadry. Subsequently, I also learned that only a few Pat-Net members had actually read my paper.

I was later informed that motions were introduced at the conference business meeting to repudiate my address as not representative of PAT-Net and to censure Professor Dan Balfour of Michigan’s Grand Valley State University who had originally proposed inviting me and continued to support me. One member characterized the meeting as “a public, metaphorical lynching” and “a stunning display of anti-intellectualism.” There was some unpleasant debate, but no action was taken. On July 10, three days after the London bombings, Balfour wrote to PAT-Net’s executive committee: “Do you still want to repudiate Rubenstein for daring to suggest that the Muslim population of Europe includes a dangerous and intolerant minority who see themselves as at war with Europe and America?”

To add to the damage, the essay was clearly marked “DRAFT NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT PERMISSION,” but somehow the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) was given a copy. On June 23, 2005, its legal counsel wrote to the president of Grand Valley State University, one of the conference’s sponsors, expressing “strong concern” about the address, essentially repeating Al-Khadry’s invective in abbreviated form. Nevertheless, I was not the letter’s real target; Balfour and his university were. Michigan has the highest concentration of Arab Americans of any U.S. state, an estimated 490,000. One might surmise that the letter’s real intent was to caution, if not warn, the university about what could and could not be said about Islam.

ADC falsely, and perhaps intentionally, alleged that I used the terms redundant and expendable “to describe the Muslim population across the world (emphasis added),” thereby implying that the address contained a rationale for global religio-ethnic cleansing! I did use these common sociological terms not nefariously but to describe the political and demographic consequences of the Muslim world’s population explosion since the nineteen-fifties, as well as to suggest why so many young Muslim males may be willing to give substance to Osama bin Ladin’s boast that religious Muslims “love death whereas cowardly westerners cling to life.”

By linguistic slight-of-hand, ADC further distorted my meaning by a simple change of tense. Mindful of the 732 C.E. Battle of Tours, the 1453 conquest of Constantinople, the 1571 Battle of Lepanto, and the Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683, I described Islam as having been “Christianity’s greatest adversary. In ADC’s letter that objective historical statement is changed to Islam is Christianity’s greatest adversary. ADC also complained that I “described in length ‘radical Islam’s current assault against the West.” It is hard to see how any fair-minded person could protest an objective description of radical Islam’s assault on the West, when Muslim extremists themselves proclaim it so openly.

ADC’s strangest charge was that I encourage Muslim “separation rather than integration.” In my career as a professor and an academic administrator, I have dealt with both Muslim students and faculty. My record is clearly one of encouraging integration. If ADC wants to complain about those opposed to integration, they have plenty of Muslim organizations far more deserving of its attention.

There were further PAT-Net entailments. On August 1, Assistant Professor Frank Scott, acting for the editors of PAT-Net’s quarterly journal, Administrative Theory and Praxis, sent an e-mail informing me that the editors planned to publish “a Forum discussion” on my Krakow address in the September 2005 edition without publishing my paper. He asked for permission to e-mail the paper to those who requested it. Of course, I refused. He then offered to make the paper available on PAT-NET’s web site but not in the journal. Once again, I refused.

Scott did not give up. On August 9, he sent me one last e-mail stating:

Because the collection of brief essays in the Forum will not be in the format of a scholarly debate, but rather of personal responses to what the participants found to be a largely irrelevant, offensive, and not properly authorized plenary presentation at our conference in Krakow, we find no basis for giving further voice to the ideas expressed in that presentation (emphasis added).

Scott’s statement is patently ridiculous. For “personal statements” to take the place of scholarly debate is an extraordinary admission by an editor of a supposedly scientific journal. Moreover, there was nothing unauthorized about the address. I submitted a written proposal almost a year before the conference. PAT-Net has no by-laws or guidelines for such matters and the invitation was extended by Balfour, PAT-Net’s site host. Had the address not been “properly authorized,” I would never have been on the program.

As noted above, there are Muslims who seek to control what is publicly written and said about Islam. At times, they are abetted by western sympathizers acting either out of ignorance or alienation from their own culture. In addition, many public officials and much of the press are more comfortable talking about the “war against terrorism” than radical Islam’s war against the West. There is risk in openly identifying, as I did, a religious war for what it is. There may be greater risk in failing to do so.

People Of Faith In Positions Of Authority

The following is a much more kindly entry than you will usually find in this blog. It applies to all "People of Faith" who find themselves in such public judicial, other governmental, academic, journalistic and like postions were there is teaching authority AND responcibility. (Sorry--I could not get rid of the ads.)

Judge Roberts, Religion and Work

Raymond J. Keating

No endorsement implied.

Church and Society

Judge John G. Roberts Jr. has been called a "devout" Roman Catholic. That would not draw much attention except that Roberts, of course, is President George W. Bush's choice to fill the vacancy being left on the U.S. Supreme Court by the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

So, questions have sprung up in media and political circles about Roberts' ability to deal with issues before the court that overlap with church teachings. Can a faithful Christian do the job?

I wonder why this question suddenly has gained attention. We've long had Catholics on the federal bench, including three on the Supreme Court right now ­ Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

However, a strong secular streak in our culture doesn't mind religious people, but it prefers that religion remain private. It's okay to go to church on Sunday, just leave all that God stuff in the pews.

Lots of people seem comfortable compartmentalizing this way. They attend church on Sunday, but during the week, God rarely enters into the equation and certainly not at work. How many times have we heard a liberal Catholic politician, for example, proclaim that he personally might agree with the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion, but can't impose his beliefs on others? (Of course, they don't mind imposing their views regarding other issues.)

This not only raises questions about governing and conscience, but also misses the role of work in the Christian life. St. Paul made clear the importance of work: "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." (2 Thessalonians 3:10) He also declared: "Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men..." (Colossians 3:23)

Many theologians have spoken of work as a calling or vocation over the centuries. In the 1500s, Martin Luther, for example, declared: "Your work is sacred." This was echoed more than 400 years later by the twentieth century writer Dorothy Sayers: "It is the business of the Church to recognize that the secular vocation, as such, is sacred. Christian people, and particularly perhaps the Christian clergy, must get it firmly into their heads that when a man or woman is called to a particular job of secular work, that is a true vocation as though he or she were called to specifically religious work."

Christians cannot divide their lives into neat separate spheres. Faith should affect one's entire life, including work as we recognize our talents and abilities as gifts from God. That doesn't mean one preaches at the water cooler, but it is important that we do our best to live, work and play according to the values of our faith as examples to the world.

And if our job calls for something Holy Scripture deems immoral, we need the courage to quit. Similarly, do we really want elected officials who abandon conscience when making laws and policies?

So, can faithful Christians be judges? Of course, especially when understanding that the proper role of a judge ­ all the way up to thhe Supreme Court ­ is to apply the law and the Constitution. There are laws that many, including judges, find morally bankrupt, but we still live under the law as we work for change through our elected representatives.

Judges get into trouble by embracing judicial activism, that is, inappropriately making law. One thinks of the Justice William J. Brennan, a Catholic, who played a key role in manufacturing the so-called constitutional right to abortion in the Roe v. Wade decision. He didn't do his job properly, and violated the moral teachings of the church.

Do the job right, and a devout Christian, including John Roberts, should not have any problem answering the call to sit on the Supreme Court.

Raymond J. Keating can be reached at ChurchandSociety@aol.com.

Posted: 04-Sep-05

Article link: http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/KeatingCSRoberts.php

People Of Faith In Public Positions

The following (And, much more kindly than usually found here) article deals with, in a broad sense, all men and women who are both "People of Faith" and are in such government, acacemic, journalistic and other positions where they have teaching authority and responcibility.

Judge Roberts, Religion and Work

Raymond J. Keating

No endorsement implied.

Church and Society

Judge John G. Roberts Jr. has been called a "devout" Roman Catholic. That would not draw much attention except that Roberts, of course, is President George W. Bush's choice to fill the vacancy being left on the U.S. Supreme Court by the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

So, questions have sprung up in media and political circles about Roberts' ability to deal with issues before the court that overlap with church teachings. Can a faithful Christian do the job?

I wonder why this question suddenly has gained attention. We've long had Catholics on the federal bench, including three on the Supreme Court right now ­ Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

However, a strong secular streak in our culture doesn't mind religious people, but it prefers that religion remain private. It's okay to go to church on Sunday, just leave all that God stuff in the pews.

Lots of people seem comfortable compartmentalizing this way. They attend church on Sunday, but during the week, God rarely enters into the equation and certainly not at work. How many times have we heard a liberal Catholic politician, for example, proclaim that he personally might agree with the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion, but can't impose his beliefs on others? (Of course, they don't mind imposing their views regarding other issues.)

This not only raises questions about governing and conscience, but also misses the role of work in the Christian life. St. Paul made clear the importance of work: "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." (2 Thessalonians 3:10) He also declared: "Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men..." (Colossians 3:23)

Many theologians have spoken of work as a calling or vocation over the centuries. In the 1500s, Martin Luther, for example, declared: "Your work is sacred." This was echoed more than 400 years later by the twentieth century writer Dorothy Sayers: "It is the business of the Church to recognize that the secular vocation, as such, is sacred. Christian people, and particularly perhaps the Christian clergy, must get it firmly into their heads that when a man or woman is called to a particular job of secular work, that is a true vocation as though he or she were called to specifically religious work."

Christians cannot divide their lives into neat separate spheres. Faith should affect one's entire life, including work as we recognize our talents and abilities as gifts from God. That doesn't mean one preaches at the water cooler, but it is important that we do our best to live, work and play according to the values of our faith as examples to the world.

And if our job calls for something Holy Scripture deems immoral, we need the courage to quit. Similarly, do we really want elected officials who abandon conscience when making laws and policies?

So, can faithful Christians be judges? Of course, especially when understanding that the proper role of a judge ­ all the way up to thhe Supreme Court ­ is to apply the law and the Constitution. There are laws that many, including judges, find morally bankrupt, but we still live under the law as we work for change through our elected representatives.

Judges get into trouble by embracing judicial activism, that is, inappropriately making law. One thinks of the Justice William J. Brennan, a Catholic, who played a key role in manufacturing the so-called constitutional right to abortion in the Roe v. Wade decision. He didn't do his job properly, and violated the moral teachings of the church.

Do the job right, and a devout Christian, including John Roberts, should not have any problem answering the call to sit on the Supreme Court.

Raymond J. Keating can be reached at ChurchandSociety@aol.com.

Posted: 04-Sep-05

Article link: http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/KeatingCSRoberts.php