Tag Archives: islam

This Chaplain Is Protected By God—and by an Atheist–at War – WSJ.com

SANGIN, Afghanistan—They say there are no atheists in foxholes. There's one on the front lines here, though, and the chaplain isn't thrilled about it. Navy Chaplain Terry Moran is steeped in the Bible and believes all of it. His assistant, Religious Programs Specialist 2nd Class Philip Chute, is steeped in the Bible and having none of it. Together they roam this town in Taliban country, comforting the grunts while crossing swords with each other over everything from the power of angels to the wisdom of standing in clear view of enemy snipers. Lt. Moran, 48 years old, preaches about divine protection while 25-year-old RP2 Chute covers the chaplain's back and wishes he were more attentive to the dangers of the here and now. It's a match made in, well, the Pentagon. “He trusts God to keep him safe,” says RP2 Chute. “And I'm here just in case that doesn't work out.” The 460 Army, Navy and Air Force chaplains deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan are prohibited from carrying weapons, counting on their assistants and the troops around them for protection. It can be a perilous calling. On Monday, Chaplain Dale Goetz, 43, of White, S.D., and four other soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb near Kandahar. Capt. Goetz is the first Army chaplain killed in action since the Vietnam War. Army chaplains represent 130 religions and denominations, including Catholicism, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. The military says it's common for assistants to be of different faiths from the chaplains they support, or of no faith at all. “They don't have to be religious,” says retired Navy Capt. Randy Cash, who served 30 years in the Chaplain Corps and now is its historian. “They have to be able to shoot straight.” Follow the Link to read the rest! added by: toyotabedzrock

Islamist leader Burhan Hanif tells Aussie Muslims to ‘shun democracy’

LEADERS of the global Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir have called on Australian Muslims to spurn secular democracy and Western notions of moderate Islam and join the struggle for a transnational Islamic state. British Hizb ut-Tahrir leader Burhan Hanif told participants at a conference in western Sydney yesterday that democracy is “haram” (forbidden) for Muslims, whose political engagement should be be based purely on Islamic law. “We must adhere to Islam and Islam alone,” Mr Hanif told about 500 participants attending the convention in Lidcombe. “We should not be conned or succumb to the disingenuous and flawed narrative that the only way to engage politically is through the secular democratic process. It is prohibited and haram.” He said democracy was incompatible with Islam because the Koran insisted Allah was the sole lawmaker, and Muslim political involvement could not be based on “secular and erroneous concepts such as democracy and freedom”. His view was echoed by an Australian HT official, Wassim Dourehi, who told the conference Muslims should not support “any kafir (non-believer) political party”, because humans have no right to make laws. Mr Dourehi also urged Muslims to spurn the concept of moderate Islam promoted by governments in the West, including in “this godforsaken country” of Australia. “We need to reject this new secular version of Islam,” he said. “It is a perverted concoction of Western governments. “It is a perversion that seeks to wipe away the political aspects of Islam and localise our concerns. We must reject it and challenge the proponents of this aberration of Islam.” The conference, which followed the theme The struggle for Islam in the West' was the first major event held by the Australian branch of HT since a seminar in 2007 which coincided with calls for the group to be banned. HT is outlawed in much of the Middle East but operates legally in more than 40 countries, campaigning for the establishment of a caliphate or Islamic state. HT's platform rejects the use of violence in its quest for an Islamic state, but supports the military destruction of Israel. But the group's presence sparked angry protests outside as members of the Australian Protectionist Party (APP) yelled anti-Islam chants. The APP met in a small park to express their need to “protect” the Australian way of life. Conflict between the APP and HT amounted to an exchange of words, anti-Islam chants and the occasional drive-by of young Muslim men yelling obscenities from their car at the APP protesters. One passer-by, a young Muslim man, yelled at the APP group: “You people have absolutely no idea”, sparking a fiery exchange of accusations and finger-pointing. Nick Folkes, the Sydney organiser for the APP, believes that the HT should be banned in Australia and thinks that practising sharia law should be illegal in Australia. “Sharia law is an archaic legal system that treats woman as second-class citizens,” he said. “We're not asking them to change their skin colour or religion. But if they come here, they must reject sharia law.” added by: eden49

Bad News Out of GM Is Not News at AP

The news out of Government/General Motors during the past couple of days hasn’t been particularly good. First, August sales results were disappointing. Second, it become known today that GM will attempt to go public on November 18, a later than originally hoped post-election date chosen to hopefully allow for another reported quarterly profit to boost investors’ appetite for its shares. As so often has been the case during Democratic administrations when unfavorable developments arise, the UK press has seen potential problems with the IPO, while the Associated Press has been acting as if all is well. In two separate items, AP reporters couldn’t even bring themselves to tell readers what the company’s real August sales decline was. In a report yesterday on the industry’s awful August, reporters Dee-Ann Durbin and Tom Krisher were appropriately gloomy overall, but they massaged GM’s reported result (bolds are mine throughout this post): Americans nervous about the drumbeat of bad economic news stayed away from auto showrooms. Automakers nervous about their bottom lines didn’t offer deals to lure them in. As a result, it was the worst August for U.S. auto sales since 1983, when the country was at the end of a double-dip recession. General Motors, Toyota, Honda and Ford all reported declines from the month before and from a year earlier. The bleak results were a reminder that, for all the good news about the turnaround of the Detroit automakers, the market for cars and trucks in the United States remains frail. Initial data showed sales came in at about 997,000, down 5 percent from July, according to AutoData Corp. “Coming in below a million units is eye-opening for August,” said Paul Ballew, a former chief economist for GM. “I never thought I’d see that. That’s a tepid month for August, which is supposed to be one of the top months of the year.” … “We know it’s going to be a modest recovery. It’s going to be bumpy,” said Don Johnson, GM’s vice president of U.S. sales. “What we don’t want to do is get back to putting incentives in the marketplace to keep the plants running.” … Overall, sales at Ford were down 5 percent from July and 11 percent from last August. At GM, sales of its four remaining brands were down 7 percent from a month ago and 11 percent from a year ago. For the year so far, sales are up 5 percent at GM, which is preparing for an initial public offering of its stock that could come as early as next month. We learned today that the “next month” part concerning the IPO isn’t going to happen. In her report today , Durbin’s massage was more thorough: Analyst: GM plans to sell shares on Nov. 18 General Motors plans to start trading shares again on Nov. 18, timing that allows the company one more quarter of earnings to build its case to investors, a firm that researches initial public offerings said Thursday. Scott Sweet, the managing partner of IPO Boutique, said GM plans to price the shares on Nov. 17 and begin selling them the next day. He said the automaker wants to start a two-week a road show to drum up investor interest on Nov. 3, the day after the midterm congressional elections. It’s unclear if the IPO dates have been finalized. Two people with knowledge of the process say the automaker’s board hasn’t approved a date for the IPO but is expected to meet next week to discuss the issue. GM is in a “quiet period” before an IPO, so no one is authorized to discuss the process publicly. … Sweet said his information comes from multiple people on Wall Street but declined to name them. He says the company hasn’t yet established a price for the shares, but hopes to raise $15 to $20 billion with the initial public offering. The timing could disappoint some Democrats who supported the government’s $50 billion bailout of GM last year and wanted to point to a successful IPO before the elections. … But one more quarter of earnings could help the automaker establish that it is healthy and capable of making sustained profits. GM earned $2.2 billion in the first half of 2010 despite depressed U.S. auto sales, but it lost $3.4 billion in the fourth quarter of last year. GM also hopes the U.S. auto market sees some modest improvement this fall. On Wednesday it said its U.S. sales fell 5 percent from July and 11 percent from last August, when they were boosted by the Cash for Clunkers program. The fact is, as seen in this Wall Street Journal compilation , that GM’s August 2010 sales were 24.5% lower than August 2009. For Dee-Ann Durbin’s and Tom Krisher’s benefit, that’s the result you get when you go to the WSJ link and compare the 185,105 vehicles sold in August 2010 to the 245,066 sold in 2009, and divide the difference (59,961) by 245,066. Yes, according to the company , sales of the company’s four remaining brands were down “only” 11% from a year ago. But it’s your job to report the full story, not merely to parrot the company’s press release. The folks at the Financial Times understand that, and also see how a company reporting declining sales in its largest market might encounter a bit of difficulty foisting its shares on the investing public. Reporter Bernard Simon also managed to find space for the actual year-over-year sales decline in yesterday’s coverage (link requires free registration): GM Sales Dip Casts Shadow Over IPO General Motors’ sales in its core US market sagged in August, potentially complicating its bid to drum up investor support for its forthcoming public share issue. Sales were a quarter lower than in August 2009 , when demand was bolstered by the Obama administration’s cash-for-clunkers scrappage incentives. GM has also eliminated four brands since then. More worrying, however, was a 7.2 per cent decline from July. Low-margin sales to car rental operators and other fleet owners climbed to 28 per cent of the total, from 25 per cent in July. “August was definitely what we call ‘one of those months’,” said Don Johnson, GM’s head of US sales operations. Mr Johnson said that consumers remained cautious amid an unexpectedly slow revival in employment. In the longer term, however, he forecast that there was “pent-up demand building” that would “eventually be released when the economy gets a firmer footing”. … GM filed a bulky draft prospectus for an initial public offering with US and Canadian regulators last month. The US and Canadian governments hold 72 per cent of GM’s equity. The document warns that in spite of a pick-up in demand since late last year, “many of the economic and market conditions that drove the [earlier] drop in vehicle sales, including declines in real estate and equity values, increases in unemployment, tightened credit markets, depressed consumer confidence and weak housing markets, continue to impact sales”. If the recent revival falters, the prospectus warns, “our results of operations and financial condition will be materially adversely affected”. It’s hard to fault Mr. Johnson for his optimism, but if he thinks the revival in employment has been “unexpectedly slow,” he’s been reading too many happy-talk missives from Team Obama. Durbin at the AP and an unbylined Reuters article both report that GM will conduct its IPO “road show” during the two weeks after the November elections. Reuters says that “The final value of the IPO has not been set but one source said early plans for the IPO envisioned selling $12 billion to $16 billion in common stock and $3 billion to $4 billion in preferred stock that would convert to common stock under a mandatory provision.” That’s $15-$20 billion of the $50 billion (really more) the government “invested” in return for a 61% stake during the company’s emergence from bankruptcy. Even if the IPO flies, it will still be Government Motors. Both Reuters and the New York Times correctly noted GMs 25% year-over-year August sale decline. Since AP couldn’t bring itself to do so, the graphic at the top right of this post, which may have seemed a bit over-the-top when it appeared a few weeks ago, is more appropriate than ever. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See the original post:
Bad News Out of GM Is Not News at AP

CNN Continues One-Sided Reporting on ‘Islamophobia’ in America

On Thursday’s American Morning, CNN’s Deborah Feyerick continued her network’s promotion of the charge the “Islamophobia” is growing in the U.S. All but one of Feyerick’s sound bites during her one-sided report were from those who agree with this charge, with the sole exception being used an example of someone using ” Islam …[as] a political wedge issue .” Anchor Kiran Chetry and substitute anchor Ali Velshi introduced the correspondent’s report just before the bottom of the 7 am Eastern hour. Chetry stated that “attempted terror attacks aimed at the U.S. have come mostly from Muslim extremists born outside of America” and then claimed that “America’s Muslim community though has been quick to warn law enforcement about these potential threats.” Velshi added that “the question is, why does it appear that more and more that all Muslims are being portrayed as potential terrorists or as targets of hate .” Feyerick began by citing unnamed ” experts will tell you that there’s a great deal of misunderstanding when it comes to what Islam is all about. Add on politicians spreading rumors that Sharia law – Islamic law- is coming to the United States simply because a group of Americans wants to build a mosque . It’s time to ask, what’s really going on?” She then noted that the “Islamic center and mosque to be built near Ground Zero is not the only mosque drawing fire. About a dozen others across the country are also under attack, from angry protests and suspected arson in Murfreesboro, Tennessee to Temecula, California . American mosques, in some cases, [are] being portrayed as monuments to terror or terror training centers.” The CNN correspondent continued with a series of sound bites from those who allege a growing and threatening “Islamophobia,” and singled out conservatives for apparently persecuting Muslims: FEYERICK: Conservatively, figures show an estimated five million Muslims in America, and intensifying hostility and rise in hate speech is alarming to many, like these clerics who we met at a recent Islamic summit in Houston . YASIR QADHI, ALMAGHRIB INSTITUTE: You would never hear any mainstream commentator say, do you think another Christian sect could open up a mosque? Do you think Jews should be allowed to open their synagogues anywhere they want? We have mainstream news presenters just asking the question bluntly, do you think Muslims should open- should be allowed to open mosques anywhere they want? WISAM SHARIEFF, BAYYINAH INSTITUTE: What changed the game? Nineteen people changed the game? How did that happen? Because we’ve been your doctor, we’ve been your x-ray tech, your accountant. We’ve been serving you slushies for a long time. (unidentified man off-camera laughs) So, what tipped the scales? FEYERICK: Wisam Sharieff, Yasir Qadhi, and other prominent American clerics say American Muslims are under siege, both by Islamic extremists and some U.S. conservatives . QADHI: You have radical Islamic clerics, right, preaching from abroad, saying you cannot be an American and a Muslim at the same time. Well, low and behold, on the far right, you have quite a number of famous, prominent Islamophobes who are saying the exact same message. FEYERICK: The Ground Zero mosque, as some call it, has whipped up national debate, fueled, in part, by misinformation and fear-mongering. Yet, anti-Muslim feelings had been simmering. Feyerick’s example of a “famous prominent Islamophobe,” to use Mr. Qadhi’s term, was none other than former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Before playing her sound bite of Gingrich, she used her “wedge issue” label, and afterwards, went on to cite other unnamed “experts” and highlight an apparent “hate crime” against a Muslim: FEYERICK: Islam has become a political wedge issue with politicians like Newt Gingrich comparing Muslims to Nazis . NEWT GINGRICH: You know, Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center. FEYERICK: In fact, a Duke University study finds, rather than fuel terrorism in America, contemporary mosques prevent it. National security experts and American Muslims, like Saraj Mohammed, fear there’s a lot at stake . SARAJ MOHAMMED: The more they speak and the more they incite people, they themselves are a concern to be dealt with and they have to be told, you have to stop this rhetoric. It’s hurting American security. FEYERICK (on-camera): Right. Because it’s creating hatred? MOHAMMED: Yes, it’s creating a lot of hatred. FEYERICK: The latest 2008 FBI statistics on hate crimes against Muslims don’t reflect what’s going on now. But experts believe the spike that happened after 9/11 could repeat itself . FEYRICK (voice-over): In New York recently, a cab driver was stabbed after his attacker allegedly asked if he was Muslim. QADHI: Slowly but surely, we will counter this Islamophobia. Everybody had it. The Irish had it. The Catholics had it. The Italians had it. Now, it’s just time for the Muslims. FEYERICK: (“Allah ackbar” being chanted in an unidentified location) How long it will take to counter is anyone’s guess. At the end of the segment, the CNN correspondent, along with Chetry and Velshi, forwarded the claim that the Islamic cleric behind the Ground Zero mosque, Imam Faisal Rauf, was a “moderate” and bewailed what might happen if other “mainstream” Muslims were rejected by Americans: FEYERICK (live): Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, the one who is at the head of the so-called Ground Zero mosque , will return to New York City sometime today. He’s been serving as an emissary for the U.S. State Department, reaching out to leaders in the Middle East, acting as a bridge between the U.S. and Muslim countries . He says, just as American Catholics were crucial in pushing reform in Vatican II, so will American Muslims be indispensable in bridging the chasm between America and the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims. So, there’s a real danger that alienating or marginalizing Western moderate mainstream thinkers is going to be a problem, simply because of religion . VELSHI: It’s a big issue. I know Imam Faisal, as you do- you’d be hard pressed to ever be able to describe him as radical, or a radical thinker. He believes he’s building a bridge between different faiths, but when this label is applied, it gets applied and it sticks . FEYERICK: Well, absolutely- and you have people simply asking questions with no fundamental proof as to what they’re saying. It’s one thing to say, let’s find out where the money is coming from. Well, I can say that. But it doesn’t mean – VELSHI: Right- FEYERICK: That it’s coming from somewhere insidious. But that’s what the allegation- that’s what the insinuation is . So there’s a real, sort of- VELSHI: That’s right. It’s buried in the insinuation . FEYERICK: Yeah. CHETRY: And I know that you’re hoping to get chance to sit down and talk to him one-on-one, correct? FEYERICK: Absolutely. We spoke to the developer, who couldn’t have been more honest about what this is about, and we’re hoping to get a chance to speak to him as well . CHETRY: Good stuff. VELSHI: Thanks for your great coverage on this. Thanks, Deb. Exactly a week earlier, on August 26, Feyerick joined the mainstream media’s guessing game over the aforementioned stabbing of the Muslim taxicab driver, advancing the hypothesis that it may have been ” connected to this big Ground Zero controversy, where we’re hearing so much anti-Muslim sentiment .” Who would have thought that a mere six weeks or so earlier, the correspondent actually played hardball with the real estate developer behind the New York City mosque, Sharif el-Gamel.

Read this article:
CNN Continues One-Sided Reporting on ‘Islamophobia’ in America

Olbermann Mocked Horowitz for Exposing Stoning of Women in Iran, Ignores Actual Stoning Threat

While MSNBC host Keith Olbermann was recently dismissive of conservatives for highlighting radical Islam’s persecution of homosexuals in some countries, the Countdown host also has a history of showing more interest in mocking conservatives who complain about the persecution of women by radical Muslims than of actually reporting on such mistreatment. Last July, Olbermann ignored a story about an Iranian woman accused of adultery who was sentenced to death by stoning – a story carried by the NBC Nightly News and ABC’s World News – but on September, 28, 2007, when conservative activist David Horowitz mistakenly cited an image from a movie as if it were taken from an actual stoning, the MSNBC host pounced to slam Horowitz, calling him a “right-wing fringer,” naming him “Worst Person in the World,” as he sarcastically mocked the conservative activist’s attempt to draw attention to such persecution. Olbermann: The image is actually from a 1994 film made in Holland… [The actress] has made at least three appearances on Dutch TV since. Evidently she’s okay. But keep plugging away, Mr. Horowitz. Let’s keep spending billions of dollars to stoke up religious hatred and send our kids to their deaths on the battlefield so we can prevent Dutch actresses from having to do scenes in which their characters are buried alive in a movie. Right-wing water carrier David, “I saw it in the movies, it must be real,” Horowitz, today’s “Worst Person in the World!” By contrast, on July 8, 2010, NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams set up a story about a woman who was awaiting the sentence of stoning to death in Iran, and treated the issue with the seriousness that it deserves: Fair warning, this next story is tough to watch. It’s about a tough subject that is not for any children who may be in the room. It’s about an international outcry tonight over an ancient and brutal form of punishment, one you might think had vanished from the modern world: a woman in Iran convicted of adultery scheduled to be stoned to death. And her own son is risking his life to save hers. It’s a story that’s captured attention around the world. Before informing viewers that the Iranian government had apparently backed down and chosen not to carry out the sentence, correspondent Dawna Friesen recounted: “Stoning in Iran is less common than it once was. Amnesty International knows of just six cases since 2006. When it does happen, men are buried up to their waists, women up to their breasts. If they manage to struggle free, the death sentence is commuted, but women, buried more deeply, rarely do.” On the July 9, 2010, World News, ABC anchor Diane Sawyer introduced a piece on the subject: “And all eyes are on Iran tonight, where a wave of international outrage may be causing the ayatollahs to stop an awful execution – a mother of two, the charge, adultery. She is scheduled to be stoned to death slowly.” Correspondent Jim Sciutto informed viewers: “Six Iranians have been put to death by stoning since 2006, a brutal punishment following a set of arcane rules. Men are buried up to their waists, women to their chests, and the stones, the penal code says, must not be large enough to kill instantly or too small not to be called a stone.”

Go here to see the original:
Olbermann Mocked Horowitz for Exposing Stoning of Women in Iran, Ignores Actual Stoning Threat

Imam to FBI (2003): ‘U.S. Response to 9/11 Could Be Considered Jihad’

Defenders of controversial imam Feisal Abdul Rauf have been touting his past efforts in offering counterterrorism advice to the FBI as a way to illustrate his bridge-building intentions.  Much like other reports, they tend to gloss over the more controversial aspects of Rauf’s statements.  But, as is typical with the Ground Zero mosque imam, it can be demonstrated that he is frequently speaking with a forked tongue. There is no doubt that Rauf has made some questionable and incendiary comments regarding America and her role in the Muslim world.  Perhaps these statements fit the imam’s overall rhetoric involving U.S. complicity in the attacks of 9/11.  As does the following statement to the FBI , which is conveniently omitted from media reports defending Rauf. Bridge-building imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was giving a crash course in Islam for FBI agents in March of 2003 .  When asked to clarify such terminology as ‘jihad’ and ‘fatwa’, Rauf stated (emphasis mine throughout): “Jihad can mean holy war to extremists, but it means struggle to the average Muslim. Fatwah has been interpreted to mean a religious mandate approving violence, but is merely a recommendation by a religious leader.  Rauf noted that the U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks could be considered a jihad , and pointed out that a renowned Islamic scholar had issued a fatwah advising Muslims in the U.S. military it was okay to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan.” Well, wait a minute.  Which version of the word jihad is he referring to when he speaks of the U.S. response itself?  Is it the struggle he speaks of for the average Muslim, or is it the holy war?  Getting very little run in the media is an analysis of Rauf’s FBI days in the New York Post .  Contained within Paul Sperry’s column is a question of whether Rauf actually knows the definition of jihad, or if he simply presents things ambiguously to make things more difficult on the agents he is trying to teach.  While Rauf passes jihad off as nothing more than a struggle, Koranic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali disagrees, insisting that jihad ‘means advancing Islam, including by physically fighting Islam’s enemies.’ Sperry then questions, ‘If he (Rauf) believes jihad is really just an internal struggle, then why does he refuse to condemn Hamas? (Why, for that matter, did he in late 2001 suggest that “US policies were an accessory to the crime” of 9/11?).’ And speaking of the fatwa advising Muslims in the U.S. military that it was okay to fight the Taliban … The renowned Islamic scholar that Rauf is referring to is Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi.  In a New York Times article one month after 9/11, Rauf was quoted as saying: “This fatwa is very significant. Yusuf Qaradawi is probably the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.” Question is, was that hollow fatwa (a hotwa as it were) more significant than Qaradawi’s proclamation on Al Jazeera two weeks earlier?  Qaradawi stated: “A Muslim is forbidden from entering into an alliance with a non-Muslim against another Muslim.”  He called on Muslims to “fight the American military if we can, and if we cannot, we should fight the U.S. economically and politically.” Qaradawi elaborated on that non-fatwa fatwa in 2004 when he said of American troops : “…all of the Americans in Iraq are combatants, there is no difference between civilians and soldiers , and one should fight them, since the American civilians came to Iraq in order to serve the occupation. The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is a [religious] obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately. The mutilation of corpses [however] is forbidden in Islam.” Abduction and killing is an obligation, but he draws the line at corpse mutilation.  Very classy. Perhaps the media should not be relying so heavily on the imam’s efforts within the FBI anyway.  Lest we forget, the FBI doesn’t exactly have a great track record in spotting red flags being raised by a radical imam.  Families of the victims at Fort Hood can attest to that.  In their defense, the FBI was constantly compromised by over-sensitivity training when it came to Muslims.  But when Nidal Hasan was chatting it up with Anwar al-Awlaki, they suspected it was nothing more than a simple case of psychiatric research. Is all this nothing more than parsing the double talk of a ‘moderate’ imam, or is it something more alarming? Rusty can be contacted through his website:  The Mental Recession .

Original post:
Imam to FBI (2003): ‘U.S. Response to 9/11 Could Be Considered Jihad’

National Reviewer Schools Chris Matthews and Joe Klein on Beck, Limbaugh, Tea Party and Islamophobia

Chris Matthews this weekend actually invited a real conservative on to the syndicated program bearing his name, and what transpired was a thing of beauty. National Review’s Rehain Salam did such a fabulous job of educating Matthews and his guests – especially Time’s Joe Klein – that I imagine him quickly becoming a NewsBusters favorite. The initial topic of discussion was Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally scheduled to occur after this was taped. Between Matthews’ disrespectful introduction, and Klein calling the conservative talk show host “a paranoid lunatic,” one had the feeling this would have devolved into a full on hate-fest if not for Salam’s presence. Fortunately, the National Reviewer was there to set the record straight (videos follow with transcripts and commentary):  JOE KLEIN, TIME: Newt Gingrich should be embarrassed by the way. He’s much smarter than this. Glenn Beck something different. The guy’s obviously a paranoid lunatic who is a great entertainer. And He is exploiting something that always happens in our country when the economy is bad and when we’re at war. During World War I, if people were caught speaking German in the street, other people would beat them up. During World War II, we interned the Japanese. And now there, the combination of bad, bad economic times over the last couple of years and, and, you know. the terrorism, has, has led to this wave that Glenn Beck and his puppet master Rupert Murdoch are exploiting. Amazing. So geniuses like Klein actually think folks going to Tea Party rallies are akin to people that beat up Germans during World War I or had anti-Japanese tendencies during World War II. Is this really what qualifies as enlightened thinking from so-called journalists today? Regardless of the answer, after opinions from the BBC’s Katty Kay and NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, Matthews turned to his lone conservative guest (readers are strongly encouraged to watch the videos to see just how well Salam takes control of the panel and the discussion): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Reihan Salam, this, this whole thing I think it gets ethnic, I think it gets tribal. I listened to Rush Limbaugh this week saying, you know, “We’re not Islamophobic. We elected Barack Obama. That proves we’re not Islamophobic.” That’s saying he’s Islamic again when the guy’s a Christian. REIHAN SALAM, NATIONAL REVIEW: I don’t that’s quite what it’s saying. MATTHEWS: What is it saying? SALAM: I think what it’s saying is that Barack Obama is someone who comes from a very different kind of background and America has embraced him in large numbers. I also think the idea, respectfully, that Glenn Beck is being controlled by Rupert Murdoch as a puppet master gets things wrong. KLEIN: He hired him. He hired him. SALAM: When you look at Glenn Beck, when you see someone, for example, remember Louis Farrakhan the Million Man March? What was the Million Man March about? A lot of people were terrified about it. It caused a lot of consternation from liberals and conservatives. But ultimately what you saw was an event where tons of African-American men got together and it was really about identity and pride. And I think that when you’re looking at our politics right now, it’s true that in an economic downturn, you see a lot of confusion. You see a lot of uncertainty. And there is a decent number of people who feel not like have-nots, but they feel like are-knots. They feel that they’re not being respected in their public life and they want to assert themselves. For those interested, Salam wrote an article about this on Sunday. But I digress:   MATTHEWS: Who are the Glenn Beck constituency? SALAM: I think that it’s a lot of folks. It’s a lot of people from smaller cities, rural areas, small towns, tend to be white, tend to be Christian-identified. MATTHEWS: Okay, who is their villain? SALAM: I don’t think they necessarily have a villain so much as there’s a lot of confusion… KLEIN: Oh, come on. SALAM: …and anger and resentment. KLEIN: No, listen, the anger is the key here. The one thing that the Million Man March has in common with the Glenn Beck march is anger. And, this is the greatest Democracy and the most prosperous country in the history of the world. Sooner or later you got to ask people, “What are you so damned angry about?” Stop the tape! Isn’t that what Republicans could have asked unhappy voters in 2006? The economy was still booming. Unemployment was under five percent. Yet Democrats had an historic midterm election transfer of power. Now, with unemployment at 9.5 percent and likelihood heading higher, this pathetic liberal “journalist” doesn’t understand what people are “so damned angry about”: SALAM: Anger is what united those men who gathered during the Million Man march. I think it goes back to… KLEIN: Anger at white people, yes! Yes, that’s not an error in transcription. Klein really said the Million Man March was about African-Americans angry at white people:  SALAM: I’m pretty sure that’s not true. KATTY KAY, BBC: When you say, when you say that they’re not have-nots, they feel they are-nots, they are not what? They are not what they see represented in Washington? SALAM: That’s, that’s certainly a part of it. Also, a lot of these people felt disaffected during the Bush years as well. There’s a large number of voters… KAY: But they weren’t angry and they weren’t speaking out against Washington. SALAM: Oh, they certainly were angry, but that anger, that anger wasn’t part of the narrative. Right now that anger fits a media narrative, if I may, that’s very compelling and exciting for people to talk about, and it fits a lot of preconceived notions. KLEIN: And where is that coming narrative coming from? SALAM: It’s coming from a lot of folks, including some of the folks around this roundtable not intentionally, but I think it’s the prism through which we see the world. Ouch! Talk about your shot to the heart! Of course, what Salam was saying was 100 percent true. The disaffected conservative voters have been showing their displeasure since Ross Perot began educating people about the perils of fiscal indiscipline in 1992.  More recently, this anger manifested itself when conservatives didn’t show up to vote in 2006 due to their disgust with the out of control spending by a Republican-controlled Congress. Not that shills like Klein would ever want to admit it, but conservative anger at Republicans had just as much to do with the Democrats’ victory in 2006 as did liberal anger at Republicans. But this lesson wasn’t over, for Matthews asked Salam another great question: MATTHEWS: Here’s my question: There’s a big differential between Republicans attitudes towards Islam and Democratic attitudes. There’s some animus from both parties. But only 27 percent of Democrats say they have a problem with Islam. 54 percent of Republicans do. Explain the differential. As a little background, Matthews has been harping on this issue since the Pew Research Center released these numbers on August 19. Now, the liberal host was finally going to understand the data:  SALAM: I will happily explain it. 25 percent of Americans identify as Republicans. 42 percent identify as conservatives. When you look at those conservatives who don’t identify with the Republican Party, they have different views on a whole host of issues including gay marriage and what have you. And I think that when you’re looking at that 25 percent, that smaller group, then it stands to reason that they’re going to have somewhat different views. Another thing is… MATTHEWS: Why are they anti-islamic. SALAM: One way of saying “I have an unfavorable view of Islam” is to say that “I devoutly believe my own religious views, and I do not accept those views as true.” The view that a lot of Americans have, you know, Buddhists and Hindus and Christians are all going toward the same God, that is the eccentric view in the history of Abrahamic religion. MATTHEWS: Right. SALAM: And I think that, you know, if you asked this several years ago, you would have gotten a pretty similar answer. It’s just that it didn’t connect with the political narrative. Exactly, for the narrative today is that anyone that doesn’t agree with Barack Obama is racist and anybody that doesn’t support the Ground Zero mosque is anti-Islamic. As such, people like Matthews, Klein, and all the Left’s media minions are using any polling data that arises to further this narrative in the hopes the electorate will buy into it before Election Day. Nicely played, Reihan. Bravo!  Readers are encouraged to also review Brad Wilmouth’s ” Joe Klein & Matthews Link Anti-Muslim ‘Attitude’ to ‘Deranged Muslim’ Violence, Small-Town Whites Miss ‘Ethnic Purity’ of Past .”

Follow this link:
National Reviewer Schools Chris Matthews and Joe Klein on Beck, Limbaugh, Tea Party and Islamophobia

Open Thread: Terrorist Sings For Canadian Version of ‘American Idol’

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: “A man arrested this week as part of a suspected terrorist plot has been identified as an aspiring singer who tried out for Canada’s version of ‘American Idol’ in 2008!” I hope he’s a better terrorist than a singer – errrr, maybe not!

Read the original post:
Open Thread: Terrorist Sings For Canadian Version of ‘American Idol’

CNN Advocates Watered-down Politically Correct Christianity

CNN on Friday disgustingly advocated for a watered-down, more politically correct version of Christianity. Highlighted at its website was research from a Princeton theology professor on the state of Christianity among teenagers. The study found that American churches have fallen for PC feel-good morality that’s afraid of confrontation – and the result is a generation unable to distinguish Christianity from simple theism. The author of the study, Kenda Creasy Dean, said the process was “depressing” as she interviewed one Christian after another describing God as a “therapist” who exists to validate their “self-esteem.” Worse yet, many of them could not give a coherent explanation of the Gospel, content with a general belief that God wants them to “feel good and do good.” And in MSM newsrooms across the fruited plain, there was much rejoicing. Incessant pressure to water down Christianity has finally paid off. CNN reporter John Blake wrote a piece on the sad phenomenon with no introspection as to who might be causing it: If you’re the parent of a Christian teenager, Kenda Creasy Dean has this warning: Your child is following a “mutant” form of Christianity, and you may be responsible. Dean says more American teenagers are embracing what she calls “moralistic therapeutic deism.” Translation: It’s a watered-down faith that portrays God as a “divine therapist” whose chief goal is to boost people’s self-esteem. As to the causes of why this is happening, readers were given a vague explanation: Some adults don’t expect much from youth pastors. They simply want them to keep their children off drugs and away from premarital sex. Others practice a “gospel of niceness,” where faith is simply doing good and not ruffling feathers. The Christian call to take risks, witness and sacrifice for others is muted, she says. “If teenagers lack an articulate faith, it may be because the faith we show them is too spineless to merit much in the way of conversation,” wrote Dean, a professor of youth and church culture at Princeton Theological Seminary. She says pastors often preach a safe message that can bring in the largest number of congregants. The result: more people and yawning in the pews. “If your church can’t survive without a certain number of members pledging, you might not want to preach a message that might make people mad,” Corrie says. “We can all agree that we should all be good and that God rewards those who are nice.” Corrie, echoing the author of “Almost Christian,” says the gospel of niceness can’t teach teens how to confront tragedy. Hmmm, why on Earth would pastors feel pressure to promote a gospel of niceness? Why would they be afraid of making their communities angry? Blake was clueless. There was no more discussion of the PC culture, no research into who came up with spineless Christianity. This NBer decided to help Blake out with a search of CNN’s archives. Turns out, his employer has been pushing angry backlash against fundamental Christians for years. April 23, 2010 saw CNN prime-time anchor Larry King shamefully pit a Christian lesbian against a conservative pastor for an hour of televised demagoguery. Back in 2007, the network aired a documentary in which anchor Christiane Amanpour suggested conservative Christians are akin to the Taliban. And who can forget CNN’s hard-hitting investigation that found a personal commitment to Christ leaves beautiful women “single and lonely.” Whenever evangelicals grow a spine on a particular issue, CNN can be counted on to assure that it will “make people mad.” From gay marriage to abortion to authenticity of Scripture , the network loves to marginalize traditional Christianity. And it isn’t alone. Last November, Fox Network’s hit series “Glee” portrayed evangelicals as heartless jerks who get drunk while watching Glenn Beck. A month later, CBS crime drama “NCIS” preposterously imagined a fictional Christian honor killing – in an episode that aired mere days before Christmas.  Over on the NBC network in 2008, hit series “Law & Order” portrayed an unhinged college evangelical hurling death threats at liberal professors. And in 2007, New York Magazine’s Vulture blog cheerfully listed the 10 Most Anti-Christian Films to come out of Hollywood.  When faced with evidence of systematic cultural mocking toward Christianity, liberals’ fallback argument is to claim that all religions are scorned in American media. Yet some religions seem to be more hated than others. Try searching for a list of anti-Muslim movies on New York Magazine’s website. Or anti-Wiccan. Or anti-Hindu. Hollywood projects that mock those faiths are not so highly celebrated. Try waiting for “Glee” to parallel the sad plight of Muslim American teenagers murdered by their own parents for embarrassing Islam. The show’s producers are willing to exaggerate bigotry among Christians while ignoring real domestic violence elsewhere. Also overlooked is the suffering of pregnant teen girls forcibly dragged into abortion clinics, sometimes at literal gunpoint , by angry parents. No, the real threat to children is Christians who read the Bible, want to preserve every life, and encourage healthy living. Inside the backward mind of liberals, pro-life, pro-family messages are responsible for destroying lives. In such a climate, it’s no wonder pastors are afraid of being confrontational. Having contributed to a weakened, watered-down version of Christianity, CNN is now playing dumb as to how it happened. Blake did not mention a single word about pastors unfairly getting smeared as bigots, or perhaps that these oversensitive communities are being coddled by the media. Controversial Muslims who might be out there “making people mad?” Not so much. Less than a week ago, here’s how CNN introduced the Ground Zero Mosque imam: Video clips posted today by a conservative blogger have set off a new round of bitter debate over the Islamic community center and mosque planned near Ground Zero. Are the clips part of a smear campaign or do the imam’s critics have legitimate concerns? Don’t look for the mainstream media to be reporting on a spineless version of Islam any time soon.

Read more:
CNN Advocates Watered-down Politically Correct Christianity

Washington Post: Ground Zero Mosque Protesters ‘Use "Sharia" as a Slur’

“Protesters use ‘sharia’ as a slur and rallying cry against Islam,” reads the dismissive print edition headline for Michelle Boorstein’s page A5 August 27 story. The Washington Post’s online edition used different wording: “For critics of Islam, ‘sharia’ a loaded word.” Boorstein cited “controversial” conservative scholar Daniel Pipes warning that pro-sharia Muslims “want to implement sharia in every detail on everyone in a stringest way.” For an opposing view, the Post religion writer also cited Imam Yahya Hendi, a Muslim chaplain for Georgetown University and “spokesman of the Islamic Jurisprudence Council of North America,” who argued that more moderate Muslims see sharia as more like a set of guidelines to guide personal and family life than a rigid code of law which must supplant secular governance. Fair enough, yet Boorstein put her thumb on the scale by lamenting that “the word has become akin to a slur in some camps… an alarming development to many religious and political leaders.” That sentence immediately preceded Boorstein excerpting a statement by liberal National Council of Churches president Peg Chemberlin, who complained that the NCC was “deeply saddened by those who denigrate a religion which in so many ways is a religion of compassion.” While neither Boorstein nor Chemberlin named names, the implication to the reader is that opponents of the Ground Zero mosque are anti-Islam, not merely anti-radical Islam or simply opposed to the mosque being located so close to Ground Zero, and that the specter of sharia law is a convenient bogeyman for those with a cynical agenda.

Read more from the original source:
Washington Post: Ground Zero Mosque Protesters ‘Use "Sharia" as a Slur’