MLK a Republican? Ouch!

 

Here’s an ad that ran on some Maryland radio stations in support of Michael Steele, a black Republican candidate for governor.  Good thing the group that sponsored the ad was the National Black Republican Association.  Two black voters discuss the issues.

Pam:  Dr. King was a real man.

Tina:  You know . .  he was a Republican.

Pam:  Dr. King, a Republican? Really?

Tina:  Democrats passed those Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.  Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan.

Pam:  The Klan . . . White hoods and sheets?!

Tina:  Democrats fought ALL Civil Rights Legislation from the 1860’s to the 1960’s. Democrats released those vicious dogs and fire hoses on blacks.

Pam:  Seriously!

Tina:  And the Dixiecrats? Remained Democrats and vowed to vote for a yellow dog, before a Republican. Republicans freed us from slavery and put our right to vote in the Constitution.

Pam:  What?

Tina:  Republicans started the NAACP, affirmative action and the HBCU’s.

Pam:  Democrats have bamboozled blacks.

Tina:  Democrats blocked the minimum wage passed by Republicans. Over 200 billion dollars have been spent on education, healthcare and job training since President Bush took office.

Pam:  So, Democrats want to keep us POOR and voting ONLY Democrat.

Tina:  Democrats want us to accept same-sex marriages; teen abortions without a parent’s consent and suing the Boy Scouts for saying “God” in their pledge.

Pam:  We NEED to THINK! and vote OUR own values.

Tina:  Exactly… Democrats have talked the talk, but Republicans have walked the walk.

Pam:  I hear ya girl. It time for us to “DO” the walk.

(Together they laugh about it.)

Steele demanded that the ad be pulled.  Too bad, for too long the Republicans have been painted as the party against black issues.  History demonstates just the opposite.

HIV Testing for All?

 

Quick.  What’s your cholesterol level?  Then what is your HIV status?  According to the CDC, HIV testing should become as common as testing for cholesterol.  Here’s the article as it appeared in my Plain Dealer:

Atlanta – Federal health officials Thursday recommended regular voluntary testing for the AIDS virus for all Americans ages 13 to 64, saying an HIV test should be as common as a cholesterol check.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines are aimed at preventing the further spread of the disease and getting needed care for an estimated 250,000 Americans who don’t yet know they have it.

Take a look at the data from the CDC: Estimated numbers of  cases of HIV/AIDS, by year of diagnosis and selected characteristics of persons, 2001–2004—35 areas with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting. For 2004, 85% of males reported with HIV were homosexual, IV drug users, or both.  For the same year, 20% of the females were IV drug users and the majority acquired their disease through heterosexual contact.  The percentage of their male partners who were gay or drug users is not reported. 

HIV infection is associated overwhelmingly associated with high risk behavior.  Why test everyone?  The article has it right I think:

The guidelines could help end the stigma of HIV testing, prevent further spread of the disease, and lead to needed care for an estimated 250,000 Americans who don’t yet know they have it, CDC officials said.

That’s it exactly.  The same bureaucrats who tried to tell people during the Clinton years that AIDS was a disease that everyone may get (so as not to offend the sensibilities of those engaging in risky behavior) are now telling us that we all should be tested so that those who really need testing will not be offended and treated differently.  What about the false positives?  Testing low risk populations will certainly result in a number of false positives and those mistakenly identified with the HIV virus will initially be hurt, won’t they?  What about the cost? 

Common sense suggests that only those who engage in high risk behavior need be tested.  Put politics aside and develop realistic  and common sense strategies. 

It’s enough to make you sick.

Islam’s Burning Faith

 

There is a fire burning in the house of Islam.  Those within the religion may smell the smoke and dismiss it while those in the secular world may look for an arsonist outside the house.  Today’s WSJ opinion piece explores this idea. 

Is the pope wrong to imply–in a rather roundabout way–that there is today something amiss inside Islam, as a community of believers sharing one faith and a long, common cultural tradition? There probably isn’t a single liberal editor at a major American or European paper who doesn’t think that there is something a little dysfunctional–a disposition that tolerates, if not encourages and admires, violence as expression of religious outrage–among young Muslim males from Northern Europe to Indonesia. We might not be able to put our finger precisely on it–the problems of a radicalized British Muslim of Pakistani ancestry are not the same as a Sunni Iraqi suicide bomber who blows up Jordanian and Palestinian women and children–but we know there is something wrong within Islam’s global house, something that cannot be blamed exclusively on Western prejudice, bigotry, military actions or colonialism.

Chesterton on Islam

 

The effort of the Crusades was sufficient to stop the advance of Islam, but not sufficient to exhaust it. A few centuries after, the Moslem attacked once more, with modern weapons and in a more indifferent age; and, amid the disputes of diplomatists and the dying debates of the Reformation, he succeeded in sailing up the Danube and nearly becoming a central European Power like Poland or Austria. From this position, after prodigious efforts, he was slowly and painfully dislodged. But Austria, though rescued, was exhausted and reluctant to pursue, and the Turk was left in possession of the countries he had devoured in his advance.

And Vienna is under siege again from Islam with “with modern weapons and in a more indifferent age.”  This is of course the history of the relationship of Islam to the West.  And the modern weapons today include those “useful idiots” of the media.  And how more indifferent can Europe be to the siege?Š

I Love the Aussies

 

From Australia:

Muslims are “perfectly entitled” to criticise the Pope for linking Islam with evil and violence, but John Howard wants them to “move on”.

The Prime Minister said last night he was “disappointed” and “exasperated” that “whenever the Pope says something (it) provokes demonstrations”.

In defence of comments yesterday by the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, Mr Howard said Cardinal Pell “has a point” in criticising Muslims for reacting to the Pope’s comments with “demonstrations and threats of violence”.

“It’s a strange form of restraint to respond to words of disagreement with demonstrations and threats of violence,” he said.

Archbishop Pell said the nation’s Muslim clerics should address the links between Islam and violence instead of sweeping them under the carpet.

He also said the reaction of Muslims to comments made by Benedict XVI – in which the Pope quoted a Byzantine emperor using the words “evil” and “inhuman” in reference to the prophet Mohammed – showed the link in Islam between religion and violence.

That is the point exactly.  A  historical reference in a scholarly speech results in the killing of Christian religious people and the burning of churches.  If it is not true that elements of Islam have fostered evil and violence (historically and presently), why all the evil and violence on the part of those who invoke the name of Allah?

Pope Calls a Crusade Against Secularism

 

I’ve read (actually I listened to the CD’s) Professor Thomas F. Madden’s lectures on the history of the crusades and they are really quite good.  The professor now looks at the Holy Father’s recent words regarding Islam in the context of history and in the context of the pope’s speech on faith and reason:

Early in the address he referred to an interfaith dialogue between a Persian scholar and the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus which probably took place in 1391. Manuel was the leader of the last Christian state in the East. The descendent of the once mighty Roman Empire, Byzantium had by Manuel’s day been reduced to little more than a few crumbs floating around in the soup of the ever-expanding Ottoman Empire. This was a world in which the forces of Islam were the real superpower, and they knew it. Manuel spent his reign flattering and appeasing the Turks on the one hand and desperately seeking aid from Europeans on the other. In neither case was he very successful. Less than three decades after his death, the Ottoman sultan Mehmed II destroyed the Byzantine Empire and made its capital, Constantinople (modern Istanbul), his own.

This is a tough lecture to boil down to one sentence, but if forced I would characterize it as: Theology belongs in the university because only by studying faith with reason will we find solutions to the problems of our time. However, if instead of reading the lecture we simply cut out everything except the words of Manuel II Palaeologus written six centuries ago, then we have a good justification for Pakistan’s parliament to unanimously condemn the pope. If we further pretend that it was Benedict, rather than a long-dead emperor, who expressed these sentiments we have a sound basis for the Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah of Lebanon to demand “a personal apology — not through his officials — to Muslims for this false reading (of Islam).” Or we can rage with Syria’s top Sunni Muslim religious authority, Sheik Ahmad Badereddine Hassoun, who replied to the pope, “We have heard about your extremism and hate for Arabs and Muslims. Now that you have dropped the mask from your face we see its ugliness and extremist nature.”

Sandro Magister expresses his view on the controversity reminding us that prior to the pope’s lecture at Regensburg he stated:

“People in Africa and Asia admire, indeed, the scientific and technical prowess of the West, but they are frightened by a form of rationality which totally excludes God from man’s vision, as if this were the highest form of reason, and one to be taught to their cultures too. They do not see the real threat to their identity in the Christian faith, but in the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom and that holds up utility as the supreme criterion for the future of scientific research. Dear friends, this cynicism is not the kind of tolerance and cultural openness that the world’s peoples are looking for and that all of us want! The tolerance which we urgently need includes the fear of God – respect for what others hold sacred. This respect for what others hold sacred demands that we ourselves learn once more the fear of God. But this sense of respect can be reborn in the Western world only if faith in God is reborn, if God become once more present to us and in us. We don’t impose our faith on anyone…”

But then came the lecture in Regensburg, and the interpretation of it made by the leaders of the Muslim world – muftis, preachers, opinionists, government officials, with a propagation and exaggeration of the offensive similar to what was seen a few months ago against the blasphemous cartoons – was the diametrical opposite. The accusations sprang from an outrageous distortion of the theses expounded by Benedict XVI, and sidestepped precisely that exercise of reason invoked by the pope as the proper terrain for a true dialogue among the religions and civilizations.

Let us pray that the pope’s words become a starting point for the secular world to reconsider faith and it’s relationship to reason.  Let us hope that Western nations and Islam see reason as the common bond of the major religions and promote this idea as a means of addressing the rising tide of violence in the name of religion.  Perhaps Benedict’s words will spark some light of insight to those in the secular world who see faith as contrary to reason.

A New Era of Multiculturism?

 

Several world leaders have stood firm against the Muslim rage following the Holy Father’s recent speech considered by Muslims to reflect poorly on Islam (which has of course, resulted in violence as protest.)  From Australia, imams are read the riot act:

The Howard Government’s multicultural spokesman, Andrew Robb, yesterday told an audience of 100 imams who address Australia’s mosques that these were tough times requiring great personal resolve.
Mr Robb also called on them to shun a victim mentality that branded any criticism as discrimination.

“We live in a world of terrorism where evil acts are being regularly perpetrated in the name of your faith,” Mr Robb said at the Sydney conference.

“And because it is your faith that is being invoked as justification for these evil acts, it is your problem.

“You can’t wish it away, or ignore it, just because it has been caused by others.

“Instead, speak up and condemn terrorism, defend your role in the way of life that we all share here in Australia.”

Mr Robb said unless Muslims took responsibility for their destiny and tackled the causes of terrorism, Australia would become divided.

Mr Robb, the parliamentary secretary for immigration and multicultural affairs, said it was important for migrants to learn English.

“I see as critical the need for imams to have effective English language skills — it is a self-evident truth that a shared language is one of the foundations of national cohesion,” he said.

And in Germany:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended the pontiff, saying critics misunderstood the aim of the speech.

In Italy:

Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi said “there should be no controversy; the pope has already explained his true intentions. The religious dialogue and the respect for every religion is a necessity, and religion doesn’t justify violence.

Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said of Benedict XVI: He is a great pope, with great intelligence.

Of course the “outrage” of most liberals on the issue overwhelms the rational voices.  But we have a start, don’t we?

Here’s an Article That You Will Not See in the MSM

 

Did you miss the news?  It is likely that this kind of news was not widely published since it does not support the “progressive” view of the family.

For the first time, more than 100 legal and family scholars have signed a collective document declaring that family law should do a better job protecting marriage for the benefit of society and children and noting that the “family-diversity model” has failed.

The signatories said they come together “to affirm seven great truths about marriage and the law.”

The first truth, they say, is that “marriage and family law is fundamentally oriented towards creating and protecting the next generation.”

The second truth is that marriage protects children. “The primary way that marriage protects children is by increasing the likelihood that a child will know and be known by, love and be loved by, his or her mother and father in a single family union,” they say.

Thirdly, “marriage is first and foremost a social institution, created and sustained by civil society.” While the law sometimes creates institutions, sometimes the law recognizes an institution that pre-exists law and which it cannot meaningfully create. No laws, and no set of lawyers, legislators, or judges, can summon a social institution like marriage into being merely by legal fiat,” the signatories write. “Marriage and family therefore can never be reduced to a legal construct, a mere creature of the state.””

Fourth, the law’s understanding of marriage is powerful.

Fifth, marriage is irreplaceable social good, which impacts on the well-being of society and children.

Sixth, a high divorce rate, unmarried childbearing, as well as violent or high-conflict marriages, hurt children.

And finally, a good society cares about the suffering of children.

The truth is simple and self evident.

More Shame on the NYT

 

That bastion of morality, the New York Times, has something to say regarding the Holy Father’s recent words concerning the nature of Islam.

There is more than enough religious anger in the world. So it is particularly disturbing that Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims, quoting a 14th-century description of Islam as “evil and inhuman.”

And of course no editorial about the Catholic Church would be complete without that required mention of that “rigid” Catholic teaching.

A doctrinal conservative his greatest fear appears to be the loss of a uniform Catholic identity[note to ed: check out the creed of the Church, the part about "one, holy. catholic and apostolic], not exactly the best jumping-off point for tolerance or interfaith dialogue.

The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.

Sure the world listens.  But liberals like those at the NYT only pay attention to those words that they can try to twist in an attempt to tarnish the Church.  Do they listen to the pope concerning teaching of morality?  How about these words of the pope:

How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of the thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – flung from one extreme to another: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism and so forth. Every day new sects spring up, and what St Paul says about human deception and the trickery that strives to entice people into error (cf. Eph 4: 14) comes true.

Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine”, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.

The pope’s words were deliberate, but not careless.

Mr. Pope, Be Within Your Limits

 

 

I saw this photo in the paper and thought that it was one of those wierd posters that people not familiar with the English language sometimes create.  But Jihad Watch has some other ideas:

Look at that sign. “Mr. Pope be with in your limits.” What limits? Classic Islamic law stipulates that Christians may live in peace in Islamic societies as long as they accept second-class status as dhimmis, which involves living within certain limits: not holding authority over Muslims, paying the jizya tax, not building new churches or repairing old ones, and…not insulting Allah or Muhammad. If they believe that a Christian has insulted them in some way, even inadvertently, his contract of protection — dhimma — is voided.

So are these protestors warning the Pope to behave like a dhimmi, or else? I expect so. After all, so many Christians and post-Christians in the West in recent years have been willing, even eager, to accept such limits — witness the chastened reaction to the Cartoon Rage riots, in which Church officials, government leaders, and others solemnly pontificated against “insults to religious figures.” But it wasn’t really a question of blasphemy then, and it isn’t a question of insult now. It is a question of whether non-Muslims will submit to Muslim standards and restrictions on their speech, thought, and behavior.

And I hope that the Pope, for one, is not willing to do so.