More From the Religion of Peace and Tolerance


“Shame, shame on the U.K.,” protesters chanted.

They called for Gibbons’ execution, saying, “No tolerance: Execution,” and “Kill her, kill her by firing squad.” …

Some of the protesters carried green banners with the name of the Society for Support of the Prophet Muhammad, a previously unknown group.

Many protesters carried clubs, knives and axes — but not automatic weapons, which some have brandished at past government-condoned demonstrations. That suggested Friday’s rally was not organized by the government.

A Muslim cleric at Khartoum’s main Martyrs Mosque denounced Gibbons during one sermon, saying she intentionally insulted Islam. He did not call for protests, however.

“Imprisoning this lady does not satisfy the thirst of Muslims in Sudan. But we welcome imprisonment and expulsion,” the cleric, Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri, a well-known hard-liner, told worshippers.

“This an arrogant woman who came to our country, cashing her salary in dollars, teaching our children hatred of our Prophet Muhammad,” he said.

And what, exactly, would “satisfy the thirst” of Muslims in Sudan? Don’t answer that if you live in a Muslim country. You might find yourself on trial for insulting the religion of peace. And they might peacefully call for your execution.

Well, at least Muslims in the U.K. are condemning the conviction.

“One of the good things is the U.K. Muslims who’ve condemned the charge as completely out of proportion,” said Paul Wishart, 37, a student in London.

“In the past, people have been a bit upset when different atrocities have happened and there hasn’t been much voice in the U.K. Islamic population, whereas with this, they’ve quickly condemned it.”

That’s good. They condemn a fifteen-day sentence for naming a teddy bear Muhammad, but when it comes to honor killings, beheadings, and blowing up themselves to maim and kill, “there hasn’t been much voice in the U.K. Islamic population.” On the other hand, “with this, they’ve quickly condemned it.” That makes me feel better. Would they have condemned it so “quickly” if they had decided to behead her?

Have the Democrats at least caught up with the U.K. Islamic population?


Well, Is It Murder Or Isn’t It?

When the laws of a nation have a glaring internal contradiction, something’s gotta give.  This guy has been charged with murder because he slipped his girlfriend (that would be in addition to his wife) the abortion pill RU-486 and caused her to have two miscarriages.

According to the article,

Wisconsin is one of 36 states with a “fetal homicide” law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Under the 1998 law, anyone who attacks a pregnant woman and injures or kills her fetus could face life in prison.

The law was passed after Tracy Scheide of Milwaukee accused her husband, Glenndale Black, of beating her in 1992 when she was nine months pregnant. Her baby was stillborn.

A jury convicted Black of reckless injury and false imprisonment but acquitted him of violating an old anti-abortion law against causing the death of a fetus.

Black was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Scheide divorced him and lobbied to get the bill passed.

You will never hear anyone from NOW fighting for a law like this, even though it is specifically designed to protect women and their babies.  I can almost guarantee the soundbite from Planned [Destroy] Parenthood and their ilk: “This law goes against everything women have fought for the last thirty years.  It will return us to the dark ages of blind alleys and coat hangers.”

Nevertheless.  Wisconsin law recognizes what is becoming too obvious to deny, medically and scientifically: when you kill a fetus in the womb, you are killing a human person and there is simply no way around that fact.  You can try to justify it, but it is no longer an option to deny that what is being killed is a human person.  It is not a “potential” person.  It is a person.  Full stop.

Those who are against the murder of the unborn, whether by biological fathers or so-called physicians, should push this side of the law against the Roe v. Wade side.  This case is one more piece of evidence condemning the U.S.’s legalized infanticide.



Where are all the civil rights demonstrations about this?

A Sudanese court found a British teacher guilty of inciting religious hatred and sentenced her to 15 days imprisonment Thursday for allowing a teddy bear to be named “Mohammed,” British authorities and her lawyer reported.

Gillian Gibbons also faces deportation from Sudan after her prison term, her lawyer told CNN. He said he was “very disappointed” with the verdict and that Gibbons planned to appeal.

Do they allow appeals in Sudan?


“Call It Theocracy” (with apologies to Bruce Cockburn)

Let it stand as written: Unless and until the United States charges a person with “insulting religion” because she names a teddy bear Jesus, or Muhammad, or Buddha, or Al Gore, it will not and cannot be a theocracy.  He/she/it who has ears (*ahem* ACLU, Americans United…, idiots everywhere, etc.  *ahem*), let him/her/it hear.

This case is plainly ludicrous.  Muhammad was certainly no teddy bear.  (But he does have a website!)


Two NR Items

I was excited to receive the first issue of my new subscription to National Review today.  (I might have gone with The Weekly Standard but it was not offered in the catalog that one of my Confirmation kids was selling.)  Two items from the always entertaining “The Week”:

Hillary Clinton says that her competitors are picking on her because she’s a woman.  Hey, Hillary: If you can’t stand the heat, stay in the kitchen.


NFL scouts are after him, but Adam Ballard, a senior fullback at the Naval Academy, isn’t biting.  “Being a Marine fits my mentality,” he said, explaining why he’s seeking a commission that would deny him a shot at a professional career.  “I don’t see myself as one who sits back.  I like to be down in the dirt with a gun in my hand.”  For Ballard, it’s more than a simple call to action: “When I’m older, I want to be able to look at my kids and tell them why they can go to any church and why your mom doesn’t have to wear a burqa.”  Oo-rah!


You, Out of the Gene Pool!

Sarah Irving and Toni Vernelli are two women who feel that having children is selfish and bad for the environment. (Here‘s a longer story from the Daily Mail.) They are like every other fanatical extremist who populates the lunatic fringe. They want sacrifice, but they want it from other people. In this case, they’re happy to sacrifice the lives of their children for the sake of their stupid cause. If they think people are bad for the environment, why didn’t they go first and off themselves? That would have killed (no pun intended) two birds with one stone: it would have saved us their idiot commentary and the murders of two children.

My favorite unintended (I think) irony of the story is this:

The environmental advocate also sees having children as an egotistical act. ‘Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,’ Vernelli told the Mail, adding she believes bringing new life into the world only adds to the problem.

Well, yeah, that’s what I thought when my wife conceived. Obviously.

It’s so great that they’re completely unselfish in their childless lifestyle:

Toni says: “After the operation, which is irreversible, I didn’t feel emotional – just relieved.

“I’ve never doubted that I made the right decision. Ed and I married in September 2002, and have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children.

“We love walking and hiking, and we often go away for weekends.

“Every year, we also take a nice holiday – we’ve just come back from South Africa.

“We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population.”

Yeah, children really drag you down.

At least one positive was gained: they’re both now sterile. ” But while other young women dream of marriage and babies, Toni was convinced it was her duty not to have a child.” It is unfortunate, however, that Toni’s parents did not consider their “duty” to the environment before she “came of age” (by which, of course, I mean “born”).

[Vernelli said:] “Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

What about all the people living now? In fact, now that I think of it, these women are polluting my environment. Where’s my gun? Surely they won’t object to me reducing their carbon footprint all the way to zero. Actually, maybe we can construct some sort of “chamber” that produces “gases,” which “solve” the problem of “unwanted” people and anyone else who gets in the way of “nature.” Toni, want to be first to try it out?

The Reverend House’s commentary can be found here, with which I wholeheartedly agree.


Don’t Mess With Chuck!

There’s more where that came from. I do not endorse them all.

Here are some good comments from Gov. Huckabee on abortion. Even though I think that most states would severely restrict abortion if given the chance, Huckabee is right that it is either right or wrong to kill a fetus (you know, that “thing” that people who don’t want to kill them call a “baby”?). I’m not sure it’s the right political move, but you’ve got to admire politicians who don’t give a flying crap about political expediency.

(And, yes, I am having fun with YouTube.)