Why 'Pro-choice' & 'Pro-life' misunderstand each other

I found the following very helpful for understanding the "abortion wars" from both sides.

October 30, 2006 -- http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=513

Richard Stith writes:

"Why do many pro-choice people find our arguments against early abortion not just unconvincing but absurd? Consider, for example, the ridicule that the defense of human embryos sometimes draws. In order to have any hope of winning the debate, defenders of unborn life must understand how an argument that seems wholly reasonable to us can strike our opponents as a bizarre (therefore religious) doctrine wholly unconnected to the real world.

I submit that pro-life arguments seem absurd to any listener who has in the back of the mind a sense that the embryo or fetus is being constructed in the womb. Here’s an analogy: At what point in the automobile assembly-line process can a “car” be said to exist? I suppose most of us would point to some measure of minimum functionality (viability), like having wheels and/or a motor, but some might insist on the need for windshield wipers or say it’s not fully a car until it rolls out onto the street (is born). We would all understand, however, that there’s no clearly “right” answer as to when a car is there. And we would also agree that someone who claimed the car to be present from the insertion of the first screw at the very beginning of the assembly line would be taking an utterly absurd position. To someone who conceives of gestation as intrauterine construction, pro-life people sound just this ridiculous. For a thing being constructed is truly not there until it is nearly complete. (Moving from ordinary language to metaphysics, we would say that a constructed thing does not have its essential form until it is complete or nearly complete. And it can’t be that thing without having the form of that thing.)"

And:

"The difference between making and developing is not just an accident of language. Suppose we’re back in the pre-digital days and you’ve just taken a fabulous photo, one you know you will prize, with your Polaroid camera. (Say it’s a picture of a jaguar that has now darted back into the jungle, so that the photo is unrepeatable.) You are just starting to let the photo hang out to develop when I grab it and rip its cover off, thus destroying it. What would you think if I responded to your dismay with the assertion: “Hey man, it was still in the brown-smudge stage.

Why should you care about brown smudges?” You would find my defense utterly absurd. Just so for pro-lifers, who find dignity in every human individual: To say that killing such a prized being doesn’t count if he or she is still developing in the womb strikes them as outrageously absurd.
By contrast, if I had simply destroyed a blank, unexposed piece of your film, you would have been much less upset. You really would have lost little more than a smudge. Passive potential does not count for much. Only developing potential already contains its own form (essence, identity), is already the what that it is in the process of manifesting."

Hospital admits to burning aborted babies in waste incinerator

And we still do nothing? Or are some of you doing something?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412172&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

We can't infiltrate the Muslim 'street'?

Here's a taste of one of Mark Steyn's latest -- so why do we continue to ignore the issue?

"NOT long after 9/11, I said, just as an aside, that these days whenever something goofy turns up on the news chances are it involves some fellow called Mohammad.

-- A plane flies into the World Trade Center? Mohammad Atta.
-- A sniper starts killing gas station customers around Washington, D.C.? John Allen Muhammad.
-- A guy fatally stabs a Dutch movie director? Mohammed Bouyeri.
-- A gunman shoots up the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport? Hesham Mohamed Hedayet.
-- A terrorist slaughters dozens in Bali? Noordin Mohamed.
-- A British subject self-detonates in a Tel Aviv bar? Asif Mohammad Hanif.
-- A terrorist cell bombs the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Ali Mohamed.
-- A gang rapist preys on the women of Sydney, Australia? Mohammad Skaf.
-- A group of Dearborn, Mich., men charged with cigarette racketeering in order to fund Hezbollah? Fadi Mohamad-Musbah Hammoud, Mohammad Fawzi Zeidan and Imad Mohamad-Musbah Hammoud.
-- A Canadian terror cell is arrested for plotting to bomb Ottawa and behead the prime minister? Mohammad Dirie, Amin Mohamed Durrani and Yasim Abdi Mohamed.

Sophisticates object that very few of the Mohammads on the list above are formal agents of al Qaeda. But so what? There are no "card-carrying members" of this enemy: That's what makes them an ever-bigger threat: You don't need to plant sleepers. If you've got a big pool of manpower and a big idea that's just out there all the time - 24/7, flickering away invitingly like a neon sign in the Western darkness - that's enough to cause a big heap of trouble.

AND there are minimal degrees of separation between all these Mohammads and the most eminent figures in the Muslim world and the critical institutions at the heart of the West. For example, in 2003, Abdurahman Alamoudi was jailed for attempting to launder money from a Libyan terror-front "charity" into Syria via London.

Who's Abdurahman Alamoudi?

He's the guy who until 1998 certified Muslim chaplains for the United States military, under the aegis of his Saudi-funded American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council. In 1993, at an American military base, at a ceremony to install the first imam in the nation's armed forces, it was Mr. Alamoudi who presented him with his new insignia of a silver crescent star.
He's also the fellow who helped devise the three-week Islamic awareness course in California public schools, in the course of which students adopt Muslim names, wear Islamic garb, give up candy and TV for Ramadan, memorize suras from the Koran, learn that "jihad" means "internal personal struggle," profess the Muslim faith, and recite prayers that begin "In the name of Allah," etc.

OH, and, aside from his ster ling efforts on behalf of multicultural education, Alamoudi was also an adviser on Islamic matters to Hillary Clinton.

And it turns out he's a bagman for terrorists.

Infiltration-wise, I would say that's pretty good. The desk jockeys at the CIA insist, oh no, it would be impossible for them to get any of their boys inside al Qaeda. But the other side has no difficulty setting their chaps up in the heart of the U.S. military, and the U.S. education system, and the U.S. political establishment, and the offices of U.S. senators and former First Ladies. "

Mark Steyn was a winner of the 2006 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism. Excerpted with permission from "America Alone: The End of the World as We KnowIt" (Regnery).

For the full article, see:
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/10172006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_dark_globalism_opedcolumnists_mark_steyn.htm

Europe, for all its woes, is not the same vis-a-vis abortion as N. America

I found this article on Natonal Review Online, and this article on First Things, and was astounded that the news media haven't said a thing....mum's the word.... I guess.

Argueably, Canada currently has no laws vis-a-vis abortion.

The USA has a myriad of minor laws restricting abortion, but has Supreme Court laws granting "open season" to all of the states which might choose it.

Don't know if it's true

Don't know if it's true....

SHAMELESS STAR BUYS AN AFRICAN SOUVENIR
By ANDREA PEYSER

October 12, 2006 --

NO WORD - yet - on whether Madonna plans to nail her brand-new bouncing boy to a crucifix, live, in concert.
Madonna, the sluttish, egomaniacal mother-of-the-century has topped even her most revolting self. She plans to remove a baby from the loving arms of his dirt-poor father, in one of the most desperate nations on earth.
Madonna has traveled far beyond her bra-baring, intercourse-simulating, public girl-kissing, Jesus-emulating loser antics to grab attention - and flesh.
The one-named wonder, who already has given birth to two children by two different daddies, one of whom she would not deign to marry, has her heart set on raping Malawi.
What do you think about Madonna adopting a child from Malawi?Post your comments here
Days ago, she lined up 12 African boys - tots hand-selected for her perusal. She picked out a 1-year-old, David, to take home in her luggage.
Well guess what? The boy selected in this freakish slave auction is no AIDS orphan. He's got a biological father, plus a granny - but was placed in an orphanage after his mother died. His family loves him. They just can't afford him.
If Madonna possessed a speck of sanity or shame, she would write a generous check. Instead, the boy's father says he is thrilled at the prospect of a wealthy American carting off his progeny.
Madonna should nail herself on her crucifix - for real, this time.
Malawi is making an exception to its law that forbids foreigners from adopting a baby. Living proof that money talks.
Madonna, who at 48 has more undeserved cash than probably sits in the Malawi treasury, agreed to pay big bucks for the transaction.
In exchange for her human package, she will pour $3 million into a center to help 1,000 Malawi orphans.
She'll also spend a mil on a documentary about the plight of children there. Presumably, this plight does not include Madonna's child purchase.
But wait - there's a catch.
Children educated at Madonna's new orphan center and bin for rejected babies will be taught a curriculum based on her pet religion, kabbala.
There is nothing that money can't buy, I suppose. That is except talent and taste - and moral fiber.
Stop this monster!
andrea.peyser@nypost.com
Home
NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COMare trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc. Copyright 2006 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

Britain's inheritance laws, gay/lesbian unions, and justice?

Ryan T. Anderson writes:
Last month, Britain’s Telegraph ran stories telling of two elderly sisters who brought the British government before the European Court of Human Rights. The sisters, both in their eighties, lived and worked on their family farm all their lives, caring for their parents and aunts as they grew older. When their parents passed away, the sisters inherited the property. And now, as the sisters look toward their own passing, they know that when one sister passes away, the other sister will inherit the property, and a resulting tax. The problem? The house, which was built at a price tag of £7,000 in 1965, is now valued at £875,000, which means there will be an estimated £236,000 inheritance tax levied upon the surviving sister. Neither sister has that kind of money. To pay the tax, the surviving sister will be forced to sell the entire property.
According to the Telegraph, the sisters have feared this result for some time now and for the past thirty-one years have been fighting to change the law so that it excludes family members from the inheritance tax (or death tax, as it is often called). This tax is not paid by spouses or civil union partners, but is paid by siblings and other familial descendants. And as the sisters note, other women who live in stable, loving, committed relationships—as the sisters have for all of their lives—are now granted civil partnerships by the state. One sister, Joyce Burden, told the Daily Mail, “If we were a lesbian couple, we would not be facing massive inheritance bills.” But, precisely because they are sisters, and not lesbians, they do not qualify as civil partners. For in the government’s eyes, there are profound differences between siblings and couples: “Couples enjoy a relationship of choice. Siblings, however, enjoy a relationship of consanguinity. Further, the relationship between siblings is forever, whereas couples may part.” And for these reasons, the government grants civil partnerships to couples but not to sisters. In Ms. Burden’s view, “This is an insult to single people who have looked after elderly parents. I don’t call that justice.” The sisters are now suing, citing two clauses of the Human Rights Convention—the right to enjoy private property and principles of anti-discrimination.
It is not readily apparent why this case should fall to a court of human rights: There isn’t any human right prohibiting inheritance taxes or mandating specific governmental recognition of filial relationships. Nonetheless, the rationale offered by the government for its policy is deeply problematic, for it simply gets the relationship between family and state wrong. With respect to both the inheritance tax and laws regarding civil unions, the government has simply forgotten that the human family stands prior to, and independent of, the state. The state does not create marriage or the family; it merely recognizes and—where sound law and policy are in place—respects and supports this natural and indispensable human institution. This has profound implications for both the inheritance tax and civil partnerships.
If the family is a pre-political, basic institution of civil society, then the goods of the family, including material possessions, should be recognized by the state as residing in the family and not narrowly, or exclusively, in either the individuals who comprise the family nor the state to which the family belongs. Hence, upon the death of an individual, his property should be allowed to remain with his family, with his wife, children, and any other designated relatives. The family enterprise that labored to generate the wealth should be allowed to be the institution that retains the wealth. On the current scheme, however, things appear exactly backwards: The state stands as the prime organ of civil society, and upon one’s death, one’s possessions are returned to the state, to be divvied up as the state sees fit. In this case, one sister’s property will be returned to the government upon her death, to be bought back by the other sister at the price of the current death tax.
But this makes no sense, for the family is the basic and natural institution. The state, though important and even necessary to advance and protect the well-being of persons and families, is instrumentally but not intrinsically valuable. In this case, after one sister’s passing, the other sister’s life will continue as before, particularly with regard to the estate and house. She does not really inherit anything; she merely loses her sister. Thus, when the government argues that couples “enjoy a relationship of choice” while siblings “enjoy a relationship of consanguinity,” the government fails to recognize that this “consanguinity” is the basis of all civil society and as such demands recognition, particularly when those ties of consanguinity truly bind. For consider the case of the family business, run by father and son, operated out of the first floor of their home, the family living in the upper floors. Upon the father’s passing, the business, home, and other aspects of his estate will be officially passed on to the son, but as far as the son’s—and the rest of the family’s—daily life goes, their material possessions have not changed. What was the father’s was the son’s, and what was the son’s was the entire family’s. None of it should be transferred to the state, only to be returned to the family upon paying the price of the inheritance tax.
The fatal flaw in the state’s approach to the inheritance tax is that it fails to account for the fact that human beings, in most cases, do not live as solitary individuals. Rather, they exist in communities, in families. Property law, however, views estates as the sole possession of one individual and thus, upon death, views the property as “transferred” or “inherited” even where there hasn’t been any real change, just a legal fiction. Then the inheritance tax kicks in, often leaving the survivors—as in the case of these sisters—in a position of having to sell the property in order to pay the tax. If the state will reject the false idea that humanity is composed only of atomistic individuals, and if the state will genuinely respect the natural institution of the family, cases like these could easily be avoided—and without any reference to domestic partnerships or civil unions. Members of a family should not need to enter into civil or domestic partnerships in order to protect their family farms, businesses, heirlooms, and other family possessions from misguided tax schemes.
Moreover, the government’s policy on civil partnerships is equally misguided. The state has long recognized the exclusive, permanent, and sexual union of a man and woman in marriage, and thus has treated married individuals as a single entity—a couple—and the fruit of their sexual union as part of that single entity—a family. But, in the wake of modernity’s sexual revolution, elected officials believed they had to recognize formally same-sex sexual arrangements. The solution they devised was civil partnerships: recognized domestic relationships between adults of the same sex.
The problem with this, however, was that it dictated that these relationships be sexual in nature. Thus, a middle-aged woman taking care of her elderly mother, or, as in this case, two elderly sisters living domestically—but not sexually—with each other do not qualify. This is lunacy. And all because the real push for civil partnerships was to create gay “marriage” without having to call it marriage. The legislature made a profound and dangerous error when it assumed that marriage is something the state created and thus something the state can refashion at will. If, on the contrary, marriage objectively exists as a given, and if marriage exists precisely because of its nature as a sexual and potentially procreative relationship, then the creation of any other recognized sexual relationship is certain to spell disaster. Witness the plight of the elderly sisters in England. They are denied rights that they would otherwise have solely because they are not in a sexual relationship with each other.
If the government deems it necessary to recognize other adult relationships besides marriage, then it cannot discriminate against competing relationships on the basis of sexual activity. For in venturing beyond marriage—with its contours based precisely on complementary sexual union—the state has no available reasons for citing sexual activity as the defining attribute of other adult relationships. In other words, civil domestic partnerships must be open to all adult domestic partners whether or not they are (or are willing to say they are) sexual partners.
In the end, the government’s faulty understanding of marriage and family and the family’s relationship to the state yields troubling results. If the state were to acknowledge the givenness of marriage and its pre-political nature, it would neither penalize surviving family members upon the death of a relative nor create alternative family arrangements that exclude and discriminate against those not engaged in sexual relations.
Ryan T. Anderson is a Junior Fellow at First Things

Interesting article about abortion within N. America

The Issue Harper Can't Ignore

During the recent election campaign, Stephen Harper said his views on abortion were "complex." "I don't fall into any of the neat polar extremes on this issue," he told Global news.

by Father Raymond J. De Souza

Abortion-on-demand is said to be either a fundamental Charter right or a massive violation of the fundamental right to life. Those are the "neat polar extremes" Mr. Harper describes. It would appear that a moderate position would be somewhere in between.
… likely, he means by "complex" that he belongs to the 52 percent of Canadians who … want "some restrictions."
Except in Canada. Our public policy — no restriction on taxpayer-funded abortion at any time during gestation — is unmatched by any other democracy. Save for Chinese-style mandatory abortions, it would not be possible for Canada to be more extreme in its abortion license. So extreme in fact that even our polar neighbours, Sweden and Norway, would blanch at our permissiveness. Both countries prohibit abortion in most cases after 18 weeks gestation. In Britain, it is 24 weeks. In Italy, 13 weeks. In France, Germany and Belgium it is 12 weeks.
Only the United States matches our abortion-on-demand policy. Even so, Americans have parental notification statutes, a prohibition on federal funding and a federal ban on partialbirth abortion — soon to be under review by the Supreme Court. The moderate Canadian position is, in fact, American-style absolutism taken to the extreme.
Last Sunday, the Calgary Herald pointed to the European examples, and declared its editorial position to be in favour of "reasonable limitations" on access to abortion. The editorial represented a departure from the paper's own extremist abortion position of the late 1980s, which favoured no abortion law at all and called for more robust support of abortion by tax dollars.
"We have been talking about the issue of abortion for several years, and discussing whether we should adopt a more moderate position, one that is more reflective of our citizenry," says Doug Firby, Herald editorial page editor. "Also there have many medical advances — on viability and on fetal pain — since the position we took in the 1980s."
Editorialists at the Herald report no great outcry at the change of position — which is not surprising, given that the editorial itself pointed to polling data that showed about half of all Canadians favour legal abortion "only under certain circumstances."
I support policies that would ensure that all Canadians, including those unborn, are protected in law and welcomed in life. In a democracy, we are entitled to have arguments about that, but heretofore that position has been declared as intolerably extreme — while the opposite extreme has been declared moderate. That's not a debate; it's a ruthlessly effective propaganda exercise.
The media has been largely responsible for this classification, and the move of the Herald toward moderation and balance is welcome indeed. Other major newspapers should follow suit, not only for the cause of life, but for the health of our democracy, in which public policy debates should actually mirror the actual shape of public opinion.
All of which brings us back to the opinion of the chief public official, Mr. Harper, who told Maclean's this week that he has "no intention of getting into the abortion issue."
It is implausible that his views on abortion are so "complex" as to be beyond explanation. More likely, he means by "complex" that he belongs to the 52 percent of Canadians who, polls tell us, want "some restrictions." It is also likely that he finds the whole subject too controversial and distasteful. But a prime ministerial weak stomach is not an excuse for bad public policy.
Mr. Harper's commitment to inaction is de facto support for the "polar extreme" he says he does not favour. His "moderate" position is therefore to do nothing to challenge the status quo that the majority of Canadians oppose.
Given that Mr. Harper is not shy about challenging the status quo on other issues — the gun registry, Kyoto, daycare, marriage — his position on abortion invites only two conclusions, neither of them flattering. Either he supports abortion on demand, but thinks there is political gain in dissembling; or he simply thinks the whole matter not important enough to do something about. The latter conclusion should offend both sides of the abortion debate.
Mr. Harper came to Ottawa, left and returned, not because he thinks it is his job to explain the Ottawa elite consensus to the country, but because he wants to challenge it. He now has the capacity to do just that. Let's hope he still reads his hometown paper.
Father Raymond J. de Souza is chaplain to Newman House, the Roman Catholic mission at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario. Father de Souza's web site is www.newmanhouse.ca/desouza.shtml. Father de Souza is on the advisory board of the Catholic Educator's Resource Center.
Originally published in the National Post, March 2, 2006.
Used with permission of authors. Copyright © 2006 Christianity.ca.

Re: Life-Chain 2006 & cover-up conspiracy "exposed" by BBC.

In the Light of the Law(link)

This was a response I posted to a very reputable & intelligent canon lawyer & respectable professor -- Re: "Life Sunday". And also re: the BBC's feigned "breaking" coverage of a 'secret' Vatican Edict re: priest sexual misconduct; and also re: the scandal of N. American clergy -- the cover-up of the sexual abuse of minors, by (mostly) homosexual & ephebophiliac (i.e., perverted) R.C. priests in N. America since (at least) the 1940's.

By the way, this blog is a must-read for N. American Roman Catholics, if any R.C.s out there actually care about the things they so often complain about within the Church, with somewhat adolescent rage.

Re: Life-Chain 2006 & cover-up conspiracy "exposed" by BBC.

"I had the same reaction about our Life-Chain here in Toronto. Fewer folks than in 1999, but also fewer "spitters." However, one comment I heard was "Activists! Hmph!" Surely from a Western-liberal-pro-abortion youth (judging by looks, which can get you into trouble). But as he turned and saw me overhearing his comment, he blushed and remained silent. Canadians are so polite, even against their own moral(?) instincts."

"But re: the 'secret edict' and cover-up about pedo/& ephebo/philiac priests -- I can attest to muchcover-up. Not by the Pope (and possibly not by Vatican City persons), but by the N. American hierarchy. I could convince you of the validity of my witness to cover-up if you contact me privately, but I can assure it is NOT because I am a 'victim.' It is because I was there. So the BBC may be "off" on the particulars of the cover-up (they overemphasize the Vatican's involvement), but its report is dead-on re: the cover-up of (especially) ephibophiliac & homosexual priests & bishops in N. America."

From Private Papers -- www.victorhanson.com
September 27, 2006

Warning: Quote History at Your Own RiskThe Pope’s Remark Revisited

by Raymond Ibrahim

The Pope is under attack. Once again, riots, demonstrations, and “retaliations” have sparked throughout the Muslim world. Major Muslim figures — political and religious — have condemned the Pope. The “Muslim Street” is burning his effigy.
What great crime did the Pope commit, exactly? He quoted history. In a speech about faith and reason, he quoted a debate between 14th-century Byzantine emperor Paleologus II and a Muslim theologian, where the former asked, “Show me just what Mohammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman — such as the command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” In the context of the Pope’s speech, the point in evoking this anecdote was twofold: 1) to show how even centuries ago, there was inter-religious dialogue — a good thing to be preserved; and 2) to show that there is no room for violence where faith is concerned.
Twice the Pope clarified that he was quoting. He also described the Byzantine emperor’s remark as “brusque.” Moreover, the Pope made it a point to mention one of the Koran’s most tolerant verses — “There is no compulsion in religion” [Koran 2:256].
Had the Pope really wanted to defame Islam, he could have quoted from the much more numerous “sword-verses” of the Koran, which most Muslim theologians are agreed have abrogated the more tolerant ones: “Fight those of the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth [Islam], until they pay tribute with willing submission, and feel themselves utterly subdued” [Koran 9:29]. Or “When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them — seize them, besiege them, and make ready to ambush them” [Koran 9:5]
Even more ironic, had the Pope not been quoting, had these been his own words, he, like Paleologus, would only have been declaring historic truth — as recorded by Muslim historians themselves. Indeed, almost everything we know about the early Islamic conquests is derived entirely from Muslim sources: the Koran, the Hadith, and the histories. And all of them unabashedly declare that Islam was established by the sword.
For Muslims to be enraged because the Pope evoked a fact recorded in their own texts, is no less ridiculous than if Christians became enraged because some Muslim authority evoked something out of Christian history and as recorded in the Gospels — for example, that Paul and the other apostles preached the Gospel around the Mediterranean, and as a result were persecuted and martyred (in the passive sense, that is). Of course, the method which Paul and others used to spread Christianity — preaching — differs significantly from the method that Muhammad used spread Islam — the sword — hence the touchiness of the topic.
More amazing still is that when radical Muslims portray Islam as a religion of the sword (remember the flag of Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Islam), far from being criticized by other Muslims, they usually receive only applause and recruits.
A cherished Hadith, quoted by virtually every militant Muslim, records the prophet saying — “Behold! Allah sent me [Muhammad] with a sword, just before the Hour [of Judgment], and placed my daily sustenance beneath the shadow of my spear, and humiliation and contempt on those who oppose me, and whoever imitates a group is [numbered] among them.”
Abdullah Azzam, deceased mentor of Osama bin Laden and Muslim icon, once wrote: “We are terrorists. Every Muslim must be a terrorist. Terrorism is an obligation as demonstrated in the Koran and Sunna. Allah Most High said: ‘Muster against them [infidels] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the heart of your enemy and Allah’s enemy’ [Koran 8:60]. Thus terrorism is a religious obligation. And the Messenger [Muhammad] of Allah is the first terrorist and the first menace” [al-Hijra wa al-I‘dad].
Bin Laden himself, after discussing Islam’s relationship to the world, concludes that “The matter is summed up for every person alive: either submit [to Islam], or live under the suzerainty of Islam [as a second-class citizen, a “dhimmi”], or die.” And after murdering 3,000 civilians in the name of Islam, and repeatedly stating that his actions were in accordance to Sharia law, why didn’t Muslims protest in mass and burn his effigy for defaming their religion and prophet? Instead, a recent poll by al-Jazeera where 41,000 individuals participated revealed that 49.9% support the U.S.’s most wanted man.
In fact, when al-Qaeda, Hezballah, Hamas, the Taliban, Iranian mullahs, or the imam at any given Western mosque portray Islam as a religion of the sword, nary a word of criticism — indeed only affirmation — will be heard on the Muslim street.
But when the Pope quotes in passing someone else saying the same thing — then woe, all is woe. The reason for this is obvious. Muslim anger at the Pope’s remark is less due to the fact that he implied that Islam was spread by the sword — a historic fact that Muslims have traditionally been proud of — but because the main point of his talk was to show that violence is always contrary to God’s will. Clearly such a conviction implies that Islam, which Muslims know was spread by the sword, is not only ungodly, but false. In other words, if you evoke Islam and violence (i.e. jihad) in a positive manner — such as al-Qaeda et. al. do — saying Allah “wills it,” you are a hero, but when you evoke it in a negative context, which the Pope did, by saying that “Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul,” you are a villain.
At any rate, has the international Muslim response — burning papal effigies, making death-threats, attacking Christian churches, shooting nuns in the back, and God knows what else — shown that Islam is not violent? That is, after all, what this is all about?
[Raymond Ibrahim has a new book coming out in Spring 2007 translating the letters of Osama bin Laden and is a regular contributor to Private Papers]