Monday, January 25, 2010
PARIS — A French parliamentary panel will stop short of recommending a ban on face-covering veils in the street and instead will ask for the garb to be banned in public facilities such as hospitals, the panel's president says.
The 32-member panel's report due Tuesday culminates a six-month inquiry into the wearing of all-encompassing veils that began after President Nicolas Sarkozy said in June that they are "not welcome" on French territory.
Andre Gerin, a Communist lawmaker who heads the multiparty panel, said the report contains a "multitude of proposals" to ban such garb in places like schools, hospitals and other public buildings, but not private buildings or on the street.
Gerin stressed the need to move "progressively" toward a law banning the attire in the streets and to work "hand in hand" with Muslim leaders and associations.
A 2004 French law bans Muslim headscarves from classrooms.
Muslim religious leaders have warned that a law banning face-covering attire in the streets could stigmatize Muslims and drive some to extremism. They were joined last week by Roman Catholic and Jewish leaders who said they consider such a drastic step unnecessary.
France has Western Europe's largest Muslim population, estimated at some 5 million. Only a tiny minority of Muslim women wear such attire, usually a "niqab" pinned across the face to cover all but the eyes.
Critics of the veils call them a gateway to extremism, an insult to gender equality and an offense to France's secular system.
"It is perhaps a marginal problem, but it is the visible part of the iceberg," Gerin said in a recent interview. "Behind the iceberg is a black tide of ... fundamentalism." He denounced those he called "gurus" or "French Taliban" who, he claimed, promote a radical brand of Islam that forces women and girls to hide themselves.
Critics of a formal ban have raised concerns about the constitutionality of state mandates on dress.
"I don't think an ideology should be fought through constraining measures but through ideas," Mohammed Moussaoui, the head of a coalition of Muslim organizations, said in an interview. "It's very difficult to talk about the liberation of women through a law that constrains." (WHAT??? HUH???- BBJ)
Monday, January 25, 2010
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
What Oath? Muslims Unfit for Citizenship and Military Duty
By Scott W. Winchell
Editor-in-Chief; Interim CEO; Stand Up America Project
In 1960, one of the biggest questions in the race for the Presidency between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was Kennedy’s religion. Being a Catholic, Kennedy was asked if his allegiance was to the country or the Pope. In those days, the same as today, in Catholicism, each adherent was first a Catholic, and second, a citizen of their country.
On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy.
The following is from a transcript of Kennedy’s speech:
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured – perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in – for that should be important only to me – but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
Apparently, this was enough to resolve the question, and he won the election. Today, we have a new question of allegiance. Not a question regarding Catholicism, but rather, Islam. The reason we ask this question is based on the fact, that a Muslim, is a Muslim first no matter where that person lives. Islam recognizes Dar el Islam, the “house of Islam” as any place a Muslim is present. Islam may not control that place, but the man that proclaims his devotion and submission to Allah is by Sha’ariah Law, a Muslim first and foremost.
Islam means submission, literally; there is no doubt that a devout Muslim must proclaim this or he is an apostate. This is something worse than an infidel, or non-believer, for he has forsaken his duty to Allah. Therefore, he must always be a Muslim first, and that means he is not only unable, but also forbidden from acting in any other fashion. If he is in our military, he may take orders, and obey, but at some level, when the order runs afoul of Islam, he must revert to Islam first. This is very obvious in the case of the terrorist, Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood.
Unlike Catholicism, Islam enforces this by the sword. In many lands around the world, there are frequent examples of this enforcement, especially among the woman in Islam. Honor killings are frequent and occur everywhere, even here in the USA, Canada, Great Britain, and many other places in the western world. Kennedy, back in 1960 was not even ex-communicated let alone receiving a Fatwa from an Imam, declaring he must die, and that all Muslims are duty bound to carry this edict out. This is a religious edict known only to Islam. Somehow, Major Nidal found that he could no longer be a member of the Military and decided to act on his devoutness to Islam, and to proceed to kill his own military comrades to whom he swore an oath.
Therefore, as we see in Hasan’s example, Islam is first in the mind of the devout, and it is clear that he never intended on living up to his oath as a soldier. He took the license of takiya, the Islamic right to lie for the sake of Islam to infidels. His oath never mattered and therefore, regarless of any oath a Muslim takes, it is to be totally discounted. Not only did he commit acts of terrorism, he also broke numerous laws, both military and civil. The worst of which was violating 18 U.S.C. § 2385 : US Code – Section 2385: Advocating overthrow of Government:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
These are acts of Sedition and Treason. But to a Muslim, they are acts of devotion to Allah. So which prevails? As a free society where we are a land of laws, not men, the former applies. So we now have a very real question of loyalty.
To a lesser degree, when a Muslim from another land is naturalized in the United States, and they swear an oath to gain citizenship, to whom are they beholding? When a recruit signs up for the military, takes the oath, yet declares he is a Muslim on the form, what should we expect?
Here is the oath on citizenship:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Or was that Allah?
Here are the oaths for the military:
I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
I, (State your name) (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of (BLANK) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God. (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Citizenship form n-400 also asks whether or not the applicant has:
…advocated the overthrow of any government by force or violence (either directly or indirectly)?
I think a great many Muslims would fail this test immediately if it could be proven, but takiya absolves them anyway under Islam if they lie about it. How do we prove or disprove these issues?
The answer is clear, we cannot. If we tried, the ACLU would file cases by the boatload. Therefore the only sane thing to do to protect us from the Hasan’s of the world and Islamic deceit is to ban any person with Muslim affiliation of any sort from both citizenship and military service. Islam has no place in modern society. It is a barbaric political ideology, not a religion, and therefore, it is akin to citizenship from another country. Islam knows no boundaries, but acts as if it were a separate state. Therefore, we should treat them as if they were. They are devout, abiding peoples of another country/state make no mistake about it.
Editor-in-Chief; Interim CEO; Stand Up America Project
In 1960, one of the biggest questions in the race for the Presidency between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was Kennedy’s religion. Being a Catholic, Kennedy was asked if his allegiance was to the country or the Pope. In those days, the same as today, in Catholicism, each adherent was first a Catholic, and second, a citizen of their country.
On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy.
The following is from a transcript of Kennedy’s speech:
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured – perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in – for that should be important only to me – but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
Apparently, this was enough to resolve the question, and he won the election. Today, we have a new question of allegiance. Not a question regarding Catholicism, but rather, Islam. The reason we ask this question is based on the fact, that a Muslim, is a Muslim first no matter where that person lives. Islam recognizes Dar el Islam, the “house of Islam” as any place a Muslim is present. Islam may not control that place, but the man that proclaims his devotion and submission to Allah is by Sha’ariah Law, a Muslim first and foremost.
Islam means submission, literally; there is no doubt that a devout Muslim must proclaim this or he is an apostate. This is something worse than an infidel, or non-believer, for he has forsaken his duty to Allah. Therefore, he must always be a Muslim first, and that means he is not only unable, but also forbidden from acting in any other fashion. If he is in our military, he may take orders, and obey, but at some level, when the order runs afoul of Islam, he must revert to Islam first. This is very obvious in the case of the terrorist, Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood.
Unlike Catholicism, Islam enforces this by the sword. In many lands around the world, there are frequent examples of this enforcement, especially among the woman in Islam. Honor killings are frequent and occur everywhere, even here in the USA, Canada, Great Britain, and many other places in the western world. Kennedy, back in 1960 was not even ex-communicated let alone receiving a Fatwa from an Imam, declaring he must die, and that all Muslims are duty bound to carry this edict out. This is a religious edict known only to Islam. Somehow, Major Nidal found that he could no longer be a member of the Military and decided to act on his devoutness to Islam, and to proceed to kill his own military comrades to whom he swore an oath.
Therefore, as we see in Hasan’s example, Islam is first in the mind of the devout, and it is clear that he never intended on living up to his oath as a soldier. He took the license of takiya, the Islamic right to lie for the sake of Islam to infidels. His oath never mattered and therefore, regarless of any oath a Muslim takes, it is to be totally discounted. Not only did he commit acts of terrorism, he also broke numerous laws, both military and civil. The worst of which was violating 18 U.S.C. § 2385 : US Code – Section 2385: Advocating overthrow of Government:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
These are acts of Sedition and Treason. But to a Muslim, they are acts of devotion to Allah. So which prevails? As a free society where we are a land of laws, not men, the former applies. So we now have a very real question of loyalty.
To a lesser degree, when a Muslim from another land is naturalized in the United States, and they swear an oath to gain citizenship, to whom are they beholding? When a recruit signs up for the military, takes the oath, yet declares he is a Muslim on the form, what should we expect?
Here is the oath on citizenship:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Or was that Allah?
Here are the oaths for the military:
I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
I, (State your name) (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of (BLANK) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God. (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Citizenship form n-400 also asks whether or not the applicant has:
…advocated the overthrow of any government by force or violence (either directly or indirectly)?
I think a great many Muslims would fail this test immediately if it could be proven, but takiya absolves them anyway under Islam if they lie about it. How do we prove or disprove these issues?
The answer is clear, we cannot. If we tried, the ACLU would file cases by the boatload. Therefore the only sane thing to do to protect us from the Hasan’s of the world and Islamic deceit is to ban any person with Muslim affiliation of any sort from both citizenship and military service. Islam has no place in modern society. It is a barbaric political ideology, not a religion, and therefore, it is akin to citizenship from another country. Islam knows no boundaries, but acts as if it were a separate state. Therefore, we should treat them as if they were. They are devout, abiding peoples of another country/state make no mistake about it.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Somali charged in attack on Danish cartoonist
By JAN M. OLSEN, Associated Press Writer Jan M. Olsen, Associated Press Writer – 11 mins ago
COPENHAGEN – A Somali man was charged Saturday with two counts of attempted murder for an attack on a Danish artist whose 2005 cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad ignited riots and outrage across the Muslim world, authorities said.
The artist — 74-year-old Kurt Westergaard — was moved to an undisclosed location for his own protection.
The 28-year-old Somali man with ties to al-Qaida broke into Westergaard's home in Aarhus on Friday night armed with an ax and a knife, said Jakob Scharf, head of Denmark's PET intelligence agency.
Westergaard, who has been the target of several death threats since depicting the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban, pressed an alarm and fled with his 5-year-old granddaughter to a specially made safe room. He had been under round-the-clock protection by Danish security agents.
Officers arrived two minutes later and tried to arrest the assailant, but then shot him in the hand and knee when he threatened them with the ax, said Preben Nielsen of the Aarhus police.
Nielsen said the man's wounds were serious but not life-threatening, and Westergaard was "quite shocked" by the attack but was not injured.
The Somali man denied the charges at a court hearing Saturday in Aarhus, Denmark's second largest city, 125 miles (200 kilometers) northwest of Copenhagen. Accompanied by a lawyer, he was wheeled into the court on a stretcher from the hospital where he was being treated.
Chief Superintendent Ole Madsen in Aarhus said the man was charged with two counts of attempted murder: one on Westergaard and one on a police officer. The court also banned publication of the man's name.
"He will be in custody for four weeks, and in isolation for two," Madsen said, adding that the Somali would be moved to the Vestre Faengsel prison in Aarhus, which has medical facilities.
His defense lawyer, Niels Christian Strauss, told reporters outside the court he had urged his client to remain silent during the hearing to give him more time to examine the evidence.
Westergaard remains a potential target for extremists nearly five years after he drew a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad along with 11 other Danish cartoonists that were printed in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper. Since Westergaard's cartoon is viewed the most provocative, he is the only of the twelve to live under round-the-clock protection.
The Jyllands-Posten had asked Danish cartoonists to draw Muhammad as a challenge to a perceived self-censorship, not to insult Muslims. Still, Danish and other Western embassies in several Muslim countries were torched a few months later in 2006 by angry protesters who felt the cartoons had profoundly insulted Islam.
Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.
The Somali man had won an asylum case and received a residency permit to stay in Denmark, Scharf said, declaring the Friday attack "terror related."
"The arrested man has, according to PET's information, close relations to the Somali terrorist group al-Shabab and al-Qaida leaders in eastern Africa," Scharf said. "(The attack) again confirms the terror threat that is directed at Denmark and against the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in particular."
Scharf said the man is suspected of having been involved in terror-related activities in east Africa and had been under PET's surveillance but not in connection with Westergaard.
Westergaard could not be reached for comment. However, he told his employer, the Jyllands-Posten, that the assailant shouted "Revenge!" and "Blood!" as he tried to enter the bathroom where Westergaard and the child had sought shelter.
"My grandchild did fine," Westergaard said, according to the newspaper's Web site. "It was scary. It was close. Really close. But we did it."
Westergaard has received previous death threats and was the subject of an alleged assassination plot.
In October, terror charges were brought against two Chicago men who planned to kill Westergaard and newspaper's former cultural editor. That trial has not yet begun.
In 2008, Danish police arrested two Tunisian men suspected of plotting to kill Westergaard. Neither suspect was prosecuted. One was deported and the other was released Monday after an immigration board rejected PET's efforts to expel him from Denmark.
Throughout the crisis, then-Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen distanced himself from the cartoons but resisted calls to apologize for them, citing freedom of speech and saying his government could not be held responsible for the actions of Denmark's press.
An umbrella organization for moderate Muslims in Denmark condemned the Friday attack.
"The Danish Muslim Union strongly distances itself from the attack and any kind of extremism that leads to such acts," the group said in a statement.
But I'm sure it is all for show. - BBJ
COPENHAGEN – A Somali man was charged Saturday with two counts of attempted murder for an attack on a Danish artist whose 2005 cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad ignited riots and outrage across the Muslim world, authorities said.
The artist — 74-year-old Kurt Westergaard — was moved to an undisclosed location for his own protection.
The 28-year-old Somali man with ties to al-Qaida broke into Westergaard's home in Aarhus on Friday night armed with an ax and a knife, said Jakob Scharf, head of Denmark's PET intelligence agency.
Westergaard, who has been the target of several death threats since depicting the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban, pressed an alarm and fled with his 5-year-old granddaughter to a specially made safe room. He had been under round-the-clock protection by Danish security agents.
Officers arrived two minutes later and tried to arrest the assailant, but then shot him in the hand and knee when he threatened them with the ax, said Preben Nielsen of the Aarhus police.
Nielsen said the man's wounds were serious but not life-threatening, and Westergaard was "quite shocked" by the attack but was not injured.
The Somali man denied the charges at a court hearing Saturday in Aarhus, Denmark's second largest city, 125 miles (200 kilometers) northwest of Copenhagen. Accompanied by a lawyer, he was wheeled into the court on a stretcher from the hospital where he was being treated.
Chief Superintendent Ole Madsen in Aarhus said the man was charged with two counts of attempted murder: one on Westergaard and one on a police officer. The court also banned publication of the man's name.
"He will be in custody for four weeks, and in isolation for two," Madsen said, adding that the Somali would be moved to the Vestre Faengsel prison in Aarhus, which has medical facilities.
His defense lawyer, Niels Christian Strauss, told reporters outside the court he had urged his client to remain silent during the hearing to give him more time to examine the evidence.
Westergaard remains a potential target for extremists nearly five years after he drew a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad along with 11 other Danish cartoonists that were printed in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper. Since Westergaard's cartoon is viewed the most provocative, he is the only of the twelve to live under round-the-clock protection.
The Jyllands-Posten had asked Danish cartoonists to draw Muhammad as a challenge to a perceived self-censorship, not to insult Muslims. Still, Danish and other Western embassies in several Muslim countries were torched a few months later in 2006 by angry protesters who felt the cartoons had profoundly insulted Islam.
Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.
The Somali man had won an asylum case and received a residency permit to stay in Denmark, Scharf said, declaring the Friday attack "terror related."
"The arrested man has, according to PET's information, close relations to the Somali terrorist group al-Shabab and al-Qaida leaders in eastern Africa," Scharf said. "(The attack) again confirms the terror threat that is directed at Denmark and against the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in particular."
Scharf said the man is suspected of having been involved in terror-related activities in east Africa and had been under PET's surveillance but not in connection with Westergaard.
Westergaard could not be reached for comment. However, he told his employer, the Jyllands-Posten, that the assailant shouted "Revenge!" and "Blood!" as he tried to enter the bathroom where Westergaard and the child had sought shelter.
"My grandchild did fine," Westergaard said, according to the newspaper's Web site. "It was scary. It was close. Really close. But we did it."
Westergaard has received previous death threats and was the subject of an alleged assassination plot.
In October, terror charges were brought against two Chicago men who planned to kill Westergaard and newspaper's former cultural editor. That trial has not yet begun.
In 2008, Danish police arrested two Tunisian men suspected of plotting to kill Westergaard. Neither suspect was prosecuted. One was deported and the other was released Monday after an immigration board rejected PET's efforts to expel him from Denmark.
Throughout the crisis, then-Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen distanced himself from the cartoons but resisted calls to apologize for them, citing freedom of speech and saying his government could not be held responsible for the actions of Denmark's press.
An umbrella organization for moderate Muslims in Denmark condemned the Friday attack.
"The Danish Muslim Union strongly distances itself from the attack and any kind of extremism that leads to such acts," the group said in a statement.
But I'm sure it is all for show. - BBJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
