Undoing the Reformation

November 22nd, 2009

Williams+PopeYesterday the Pope met in Rome with the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the worldwide Anglican church. No doubt the discussion centered on the Vatican’s raid on the Archbishop’s turf, in the form of its invitation to Anglican clergy and parishioners to sign up as Catholics and start sending money to Rome rather than to London, while keeping most of the non-Catholic liturgies and practices they have employed up until now. So eager is the Pope to score a poaching coup that he’s thrown overboard the ancient Catholic ban on married priests. Married Anglican priests are more than welcome to become turncoats and join the Catholic team, along with their wives – so long as the marriage is not “irregular,” whatever that means. Ironically, only a few days ago the Pope delivered yet another ringing denunciation of “relativism” – the concept that different circumstances can justify different ideas about what is right and wrong. What could possibly be a more striking instance of relativism than allowing some priests to be married, but not others?

How many men have been forced to choose between serving the good (as they have been brainwashed to understand it) and enjoying a normal life of sexual love and companionship with a like-minded woman, who now see that their sacrifice was in vain? Had their crystal balls been working better, they could have simply become Anglican priests instead, and then joined in the exodus once the Pope tore up the rules.
Read the rest of this entry »

Swing Vote

November 15th, 2009

Election night, 2009. While the national media drones on about whether the generally pro-Republican national results do or do not reflect on the Obama administration, hundreds of local candidates wait anxiously to see whether the thousands of hours they and their backers have devoted to their own visions of making their neighborhoods a better place will be rewarded by the voters. One of them was Shannon Valentine, a Lynchburg, Virginia mother of three whose years of work in local housing and education initiatives had been rewarded by election to the Virginia legislature as a Democrat in 2006.

Valentine knew she was in a tight re-election race, but she held a steady lead as returns trickled in. She may have indulged in a moment of self-satisfaction when she learned that, with all precincts but one reporting, she led her challenger by about 10,300 to 8,900 votes. Then came the shock: that last precinct went Republican by a margin of 1,964 votes to 324, giving her a 200 vote defeat.

LibertyOnlineLogoHow could this happen? It doesn’t take a panel of CNN pundits to figure it out. That precinct is the home of Liberty University, founded by the late Jerry Falwell and now run by his son Jerry Jr. Falwell was also co-founder of the Moral Majority, and as responsible as anyone for the enormous influence the Christian right has enjoyed in American politics for the past 30 years. Liberty University was Falwell’s vehicle for churning out more zealots to undo the tolerant, humanist face of America that he so loathed. Jerry Jr. shut down the whole university for election day and bused its students to the polls. Voting, of course, doesn’t take all day, but working phone banks and other get-out-the-vote efforts does. In any event, over ¾ of the votes in the decisive precinct were cast by Liberty students.
Read the rest of this entry »

Christian Britain

November 8th, 2009

BNP logoBritish pundits have been abuzz the past couple of weeks about the appearance of Nick Griffin, chairman of the British National Party (“BNP”), on a BBC political affairs program. The BNP is a minor right-wing fringe party; the closest American counterpart to Mr. Griffin would be David Duke, the Louisiana state legislator who is also the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. In fact, Mr. Griffin and Mr. Duke are quite close; they speak from the same platform frequently, and they market each other’s white supremacist materials.

The BNP’s standing in the polls has grown from microscopic to merely tiny in recent years, largely because of its opposition to Muslim immigration, and its stated intention to (somehow) induce the Muslims who currently reside in Britain to leave. In its own words, the BNP is “committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.” Largely on the strength of the immigration issue, BNP members have recently been elected to local government seats in London, Lancashire, and Leicestershire, and to European Parliament seats from Yorkshire, the Humber, and North West England.

Despite the stated will of a small but growing sector of the British electorate, many observers argued that a racist like Mr. Griffin should not be given a platform on a prestigious BBC interview show. What really upset them, though, was the opportunity given Mr. Griffin to use his new favorite catch phrase: “Christian Britain,” which he did repeatedly. It sounds so much more politically correct than “white Britain.” And from recent electoral results, it seems to be resonating at the polls. Read the rest of this entry »

Killing Nasser – Part 2

November 1st, 2009

Nasser did not hate Jews. One of his first acts after taking power was to attend a service at a Cairo synagogue. He did see the state of Israel as a particularly galling instance of Western colonial dominance over a portion of the Arab world. If he could have waved a magic wand and sent the Jewish immigrants back where they came from, he would have done so. Realizing that he couldn’t, and that Arab obsession with this unresolved issue detracted from the modernization campaign that most interested him, Nasser repeatedly engaged in back channel negotiations to achieve a peace deal that would be face-saving enough to allow him to survive the inevitable Muslim rage. (King Abdullah of Jordan had been murdered in 1951 when word leaked out of his secret talks with the Israelis.)

Hammarskjold-NasserThese efforts, run through UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold, failed because Israel correctly calculated that Western support could allow it to survive without giving up a single inch of the territory it illegally seized in 1948, or allowing a single Arab refugee to return to his stolen house. Instead, Nasser agreed to allow UN peacekeeping forces to occupy the Egyptian side of his border with Israel, even though Israel refused to reciprocate. Israel used the respite provided by the lack of Egyptian pressure to develop its nuclear weapons.

The Palestinian refugee problem refused to disappear; tension built to the point where on May 9, 1967, the Israeli Knesset authorized the government to launch a war. This convinced Nasser that Israel was about to attack Syria, so he asked the UN to withdraw its peacekeeping force to deter such an attack. Three weeks later Israel unleashed its devastating sneak attack on Egypt itself, which succeeded because of even more Egyptian bureaucratic bungling.

Nasser took the blame and resigned, only to be called back by popular acclamation. He was still seeking peace with Israel in 1970, when he accepted without qualification a plan offered by U.S. Secretary of State William Rogers, in collaboration with the Soviet Union. When a plan essentially similar to the Rogers Plan was finally agreed by Israel and Nasser’s successor Anwar Sadat, the Muslim Brotherhood murdered Sadat – exactly the fate Nasser had always feared.

Nasser died of natural causes later in 1970, the same day he completed brokering a peace deal to end a vicious civil war in Jordan. Now the West is engaged in killing his memory. When President Obama visited Egypt last summer, he delivered a nearly 6,000 word address – not one of which words was “Nasser,” despite the fact that Nasser is thought by many to be greatest man Egypt has produced in centuries. In fact, Nasser was the first native Egyptian to rule his country since the time of the Pharaohs. Egypt’s per capita income more than doubled during the Nasser years, its arable land increased by a third, and over 100,000 Egyptians were enrolled in universities at his death. Instead, Obama focused on how wonderful Islam is, ignoring entirely the humanist tradition of Egypt that Nasser did so much to foster.

Two other words Obama did not mention were “Muslim Brotherhood.” He might have congratulated Egypt for its efforts – starting with Nasser – to crack down on what most observers see as the granddaddy of all Islamic terrorist outfits. (Hamas, for example, is a Muslim Brotherhood spinoff.)

MuslimBrotherhoodThe liberal media sheds crocodile tears over how oppressed the Muslim Brotherhood is, and how terribly undemocratic the Egyptian government is for continuing to repress an organization that represents the views of so many Egyptians – in fact, nearly one-fifth of Egypt’s Parliament members are unofficially associated with the movement. By curious coincidence, that’s about the same as the proportion of Germans were supported the Nazi Party in 1930. If the Muslim Brotherhood ever does take power in Egypt, democracy will assuredly suffer the same fate there as it did in Hitler’s Germany and Khomeini’s Iran.

Even the Voice of America recently quoted a Washington political scientist as saying “I think the most important thing that could happen for the political health of the region is that Islamist movements – those that are willing to participate in the legal system – be viewed as a political challenge rather than as a security threat. And making the mental shift, viewing them as a rival rather than as a mortal enemy, would do a lot to improve the political climate in the region.” A liberal think-tank called the “International Crisis Group” agrees – just legalize the Muslim Brotherhood, they say, and everyone will start to play together nicely.

Just speculating here, but I don’t think this political scientist was ever shot at by the Muslim Brotherhood, like Nasser was.

Why can’t we have a President speak to the Egyptians and congratulate them for having given the world a Gamal Abdel Nasser, congratulate them again for all the work they have done to try to stamp out the Muslim Brotherhood, and pledge our help in finishing the job? Or if saying something nice about Nasser would offend those who place Israeli interests ahead of American interests, why not say a few kind words about Muhammad Sa’id al-’Ashmawi, the retired Egyptian Chief Justice who developed his humanist ideas during the Nasser years, and now must live under round-the-clock police protection because of a book he wrote in 1998 called Against Islamic Extremism.

Obama is repeating the same mistake America has been making for decades: sucking up to Islam rather than standing up to it. Throughout the Nasser era, America pressed Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria to give refuge to the Muslim Brotherhood, while pressing Saudi Arabia to fund it, all in order to weaken Nasser. According to senior CIA operative William Crane Eveland, the agency financed anti-Nasser efforts in Syria and Lebanon to the tune of over $100 million. Never let Arab humanism grow strong; instead, keep it weak by toadying to the Muslim God experts. What would the world look like today if instead we had instead given that $100 million to Nasser to back his campaign to stamp out Muslim extremism and build a modern secular state? The Muslim God experts would have been angry, and the Jewish God experts even angrier; all we would have gotten for our money would have been the friendship of the overwhelming majority of the ordinary people of the Middle East, who now hate us instead.

Obama did decide to wade into one local Egyptian controversy, the wearing of the headscarf. The Egyptian government is trying to discourage this, as a symbol of centuries of Muslim oppression of women. But our Pollyanna President characterized the wearing of the headscarf as a woman’s free choice – the same spin the radical Islamists in countries they yet don’t control give it publicly, while behind the scenes Muslim Brothers make it clear to women that they damn well better make the right choice.

The Egyptian Government itself has been promoting the memory of Nasser of late, with a recent television serialization of his life – which the Muslim Brotherhood bitterly opposed. They didn’t want Egyptians to be reminded of Nasser’s support for family planning, for equal political rights for women, and for peace with Israel, all of which they oppose. Why couldn’t our President have taken sides in that controversy instead of defending the wearing of headscarves so women can voluntarily demonstrate how submissive they are?

Killing Nasser – Part 1

October 25th, 2009

NasserFifty-five years ago tomorrow, a member of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood by the name of Mohamed Abdel Latif approached a stage in Alexandria where his President, Gamal Abdel Nasser, was delivering a speech. The purpose of the speech was to celebrate the signing of an agreement for the evacuation of British troops from Egypt, except for the immediate vicinity of the Suez Canal. After working his way to within 25 feet of Nasser, Latif pulled out his revolver and managed to fire eight shots before being wrestled to the ground.

He missed.

Nasser, who had taken Israeli bullets in his shoulder and chest six years earlier, remained calm. In fact, he did better than that. He seized the moment and made it his own, crying out: “Let them kill Nasser. What is Nasser, but one among many? My fellow countrymen, stay where you are. I am not dead, I am alive, and even if I die … each of you is Gamal Abdel Nasser. Gamal Abdel Nasser is of you and from you and he is willing to sacrifice his life for the nation!”

So why did the Muslim Brotherhood want to kill Nasser?
Read the rest of this entry »

Death of a Mother

October 18th, 2009

Barack Obama’s years of sucking up to the God experts in the hopes they will soften their opposition to what he wants to accomplish appear to be for naught. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reiterated its opposition to Obama’s healthcare bill on Friday, and it looks like they are ready to unleash the heavy artillery.

The big problem, in the Church’s eyes, is that the bill would allow at least indirect government funding of abortion in a case where the life of the mother is threatened. The bill allows tax credits for the purchase of private insurance coverage that includes reimbursement of the cost of such abortions. The Church has always been against that; it insists that in such a case it is God’s will for the mother to die, whether or not it will result in saving the fetus. “No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion” said the bishops, in a letter announcing they would oppose the entire bill “vigorously.”

Bishop Nickless“No health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform,” Bishop Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa, declared. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver agreed, saying that Obama’s proposal is “not only imprudent; it’s also dangerous.”
Read the rest of this entry »

Burqa Ban

October 11th, 2009

Burqa2A familiar story in an unfamiliar place. The story: Women are being barred by law from wearing burqas, those head-to-toe robes with only a narrow slit for the eyes favored by Muslim clerics. Burqa bans have been instituted or at least discussed in places like France, Italy, England, and even Canada. This time, though, the setting is heavily Muslim Egypt.

Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi is the Sheikh of al-Azhar University, the closest thing Islam has to a Pope. Last week he visited a Cairo middle school and angrily told a girl there to take off her burqa. When the shocked girl protested, Tantawi told her that the burqa had nothing to do with Islam and is simply a tribal custom: “I know about religion better than you and your parents” he exclaimed. Though he hasn’t made his move yet, rumors abound that he plans to declare a ban on the burqa throughout the Egyptian school system.

Whether Tantawi can succeed in enforcing the ban is open to doubt. Read the rest of this entry »

The Pope and the Spider

October 4th, 2009

The Pope’s visit to the Czech Republic last week received a great deal more media attention than he expected it would, though not for the reason he intended.

While speaking before several hundred people in a medieval castle in Prague, the Pope was joined by a rather large spider, who was interested enough in the proceedings to crawl all over the Pope’s left shoulder. The Pope was wearing a white cassock, making it easy for cameras to record the spider’s every movement. The Pope’s new friend then found his way over to the right shoulder, which he duly explored, then to the Pope’s neck and ear. At that point Benedict, engrossed in reading his statement, finally noticed what was going on and attempted to swat the spider away. This effort failed; a few moments later, the spider was spotted back on the pontiff’s left side. The triumphant arachnid remained hanging from his web after the white-robed intruder finally withdrew from his home.

Videos of the incident quickly became the hottest item on the worldwide web. Unfortunately, the humor tended to overshadow the substance of what the Pope was saying on this trip, which was fairly disturbing.
Read the rest of this entry »

The Lost Jews

September 27th, 2009

Earlier this month, an advertising campaign was launched by an agency funded by the Israeli government to discourage American and other Jews from marrying non-Jews or otherwise assimilating in the societies where they live. The ads featured “missing person” posters of Jews in European and American cities. It urged viewers to pressure these “Lost Jews” to stick with their own kind, and to turn in reports on those feared to be entering into relationships with non-Jews. “Together, we will strengthen his or her bond to Israel, so that we don’t lose them.”

In Israel itself, some 350,000 children of Israeli parents are legally barred from marrying at all, because they do not profess a “recognized religion”: they have foregone Judaism and turned humanist. (Ironically, had they converted to Islam, they would have been perfectly free to marry.) Repeated attempts to change this law have been blocked by God experts in the Knesset. The latest attempt at a compromise would have allowed them to marry, so long as they don’t marry a real Jew; but this has been blocked as well.
Read the rest of this entry »

Praying for Sex – Part 2

September 20th, 2009

Augustine, the bishop of Hippo in today’s Algeria, was a prolific author at the turn of the 5th century whose 22-volume City of God set the intellectual table for the Middle Ages. The title meant what it said: Augustine’s vision was of strict God expert control over every aspect of human life. “It is You,” he wrote of the Church, “who make wives subject to their husbands . . You set husbands over their wives; join sons to their parents by a freely-granted slavery, and set parents above their sons in a pious domination. . . . You teach slaves to be loyal to their masters. … You teach kings to rule for the benefit of their people, and warn the peoples to be subservient to their kings.”

Augustine knew quite a bit about sex. He kept a concubine for 15 years, and refused to marry her even after she presented him with a son. When his mother found him a suitably rich bride, he told his mistress and her brat to get lost. Yet, during the interval before the scheduled wedding, he took on another girlfriend to while away the hours.

Augustine never did get married – the fiancé was only 11. Instead, he decided that sex – “this diabolical excitement of the genitals” – was evil in itself, and thus became a certified God expert. He used the word “diabolical” advisedly, to mean that the Devil himself was involved, which he thought had to be the case because sexual excitement was not controllable through will power: “At times, without intention, the body stirs on its own, insistent; at other times, it leaves a straining lover in the lurch.”
Read the rest of this entry »