Ted Nugent: Death To Sharia, Unless Its My Sharia

Ted Nugent, never one to mince word salads when it comes to Islam, has proposed a 'final solution' for Islamic extremists in his column at WorldNutDaily:

Radical Islam is a global cancer. Shariah law should be seen as the hate speech that it is. Its very essence is a criminal act of sedition, advocating the overthrowing of the U.S. government, punishable by hanging. It must be dealt with now, not tomorrow or next week, or surely this religious cancer will consume the host and darkness will indeed cover the Earth. 

This rabid, voodoo threat is very real and right in front of us. We must not shoot just one or two rabid dogs, but to save the human race, we must kill them all.

We don't really expect anything different from The Nuge. He is, after all, the guy who wrote "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang."

But Nugent, in justifying the extermination of the Islamic threat, also voices his deathwish for other "rabid dogs" and "vermin":

I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. Let the victims defend themselves in a timely, efficient manner. Double tap center mass. No court case. No plea bargaining, no parole. No time off for good behavior, no early release. I want ‘em dead. 

Their victims know who they are and what they are doing. Blow ‘em away and let the crows pick their carcasses clean.

Sounds a little like Sharia there, Ted.

And remember, this is the guy the GOP trots out regularly to rally the troops.  They'll do it again in 2016.

I Am Charlie -- Even If Charlie Is Vile and Unfunny

I have been seeing several comments, blog posts, and articles pointing out the racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, xenophobic nature of Charlie Hebdo's content over the years. From what I've seen, I wouldn't disagree.

Here's the thing, though. It shouldn't matter. If this had happened at the offices of Barely Legal or the Westboro Baptist Church it would have been equally as tragic and unacceptable. We should fight for the rights of even the most vile individuals to express themselves, tastelessly or not. We have Larry Flynt to thank, remember, for making The Onion and South Park possible. 

Many have gone out of their way to say "I am not Charlie" because of the type of content for which Charlie was responsible. This strikes me as not too different than saying "I am not Mike Brown" because I wouldn't have stolen a cigarillo, or wearing an "I can breathe" shirt because I'm not overweight selling loose cigarettes on the street corner for extra bucks. None of these people deserved to die.

It doesn't mean that we shouldn't call out those who peddle in racism, xenophobia, and misogyny. The French satirical magazine has been around for decades. To call out Charlie Hebdo right now for their content feels too much like telling a rape victim that she shouldn't have dressed so provocatively.

GOP Volunteer Tells Voter Obama Is Muslim, Socialist

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

In audio picked up by an answering machine, a volunteer for the Republican Party of Clay County can be heard calling President Barack Obama "a Muslim" and saying he wants to "get rid of your Medicare" while reaching out to voters in support of Mitt Romney's campaign.

The call was made as part of a statewide phone bank for Romney's campaign being conducted by the Clay County GOP. The volunteer, who was not identified, did not hang up before moving onto her next call.

Her pitch to the next person was picked up on the first person's answering machine.

Bryan Fischer On Libya Attacks: Hang Every Member Of The Mob From Nearest Bridge

Via Right Wing Watch:

On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer declared that the attack on the US Consulate in Libya in which the US Ambassador and three staff were killed was nothing short of "an act of war," proclaiming that President Obama's declaration that justice will be done means nothing "until every member of the mob that killed these Americans in cold blood is hung from the nearest bridge by the neck until dead."

Sure, Brian. That'll help.

Watch:

Would The Discovery Of Alien Life Spell Doom For Religion?

The vastness and complexity of the cosmos tends to bolster the faith in a creator for many. Certainly something so intricate and expansive could not have just 'happened.'

For many others, myself included, the more we learn about the cosmos, the more we question the validity of religion.

Mike Wall writes at Space.com:

The discovery of life beyond Earth would shake up our view of humanity's place in the universe, but it probably wouldn't seriously threaten organized religion, experts say.

Religious faith remains strong in much of the world despite scientific advances showing that Earth is not the center of the universe, and that our planet's organisms were not created in their present form but rather evolved over billions of years. So it's likely that religion would also weather any storms caused by the detection of E.T., researchers say.

Many believers tend to compartmentalize their religion and their understanding of the world. How else would we explain geologists, astrophysicists, and biologists who adhere to a young-earth creationist belief system? (Yes, they do exist.) While this seems inconceivable, it speaks to the power of belief, and the unshakeable nature of faith.

While it is not inconceivable that people of faith could reconcile alien life with their faith, it certainly would seem to raise many questions -- questions that I often wrestled with during my time as a believer:

According to the Drake Equation, there are "at least 125 billion galaxies in the observable universe. It is estimated that at least ten percent of all sun-like stars have a system of planets, i.e. there are 6.25×1018 stars with planets orbiting them in the observable universe. Even if we assume that only one out of a billion of these stars have planets supporting life, there would be some 6.25×109 (billion) life-supporting planetary systems in the observable universe.

If we are to make a conservative estimate and say that there are 2 planets in the cosmos with intelligent life, we can extrapolate that there might be three major religions on each planet (if religions even exist on these planets). Considering that humans on earth only stumbled upon monotheism 3000 years ago, and that we have run through numerous deities, it is fair to say that none of these hypothetical alien religions are Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism. What would that mean?

If Christianity is the one true religion, as many Christians will proclaim, did Christ also exist on these other planets?

If Islam is the one true religion, and if Islam doesn't exist on any other planets, are entire worlds of beings destined for Jahannam?

If religions did not evolve on other planets, what does that say about our own religions here on Earth?

Why do our religious texts (many of which are believed to be the word of God) not make any mention of life on other planets? Wouldn't that be a huge omission by an all-knowing creator?

Doug Vakoch, director of Interstellar Message Composition at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California, doesn't think the discovery of alien life would have much effect on religious belief:

"I think there are reasons that we might initially think there are going to be some problems. My own hunch is they're probably not going to be as severe as we might initially think."

Rather than being shaken to its foundations by the confirmation of life on another planet or moon, organized religion may accept the news, adapt and move on.
Vakoch cited the example of Baptist theologian Hal Ostrander, who is an associate pastor at a church in Georgia.

"Dr. Ostrander is adamantly opposed to evolution, and yet he has no problem with the idea of there being extraterrestrials," Vakoch said. "He says it's as if a couple has one child, and then they decide to have a second child. Is that second child any less special? So too if God decides to have life on our planet, and then another planet, and another planet. It doesn't make us less special."

I especially believe this would be the case for many liberal religious people -- those who have not had any problems reconciling scripture with evolution, for example. These people do not tend to approach the scriptures literally. They understand that the scriptures were written by people with a limited understanding of the cosmos, and that much of the stories in the scriptures are parables, myths, and embellished accounts.

It is the scriptural literalists who may have problems with the news of intelligent life on other planets. If the evolution debate has taught us anything, we might expect them to doubt the science used to confirm intelligent alien life.

Or perhaps such a finding might finally be what allows these folks to evolve their religious views.

I, for one, welcome our new alien overlords.

Indonesia’s Highest Islamic Authority: Lady Gaga Concert Will Destroy The Nation’s Morality

Via the Jakarta Globe:

A high-ranking member of Indonesia’s highest Islamic authority has urged Muslims not to attend Lady Gaga’s upcoming concert in Jakarta, declaring that the pop star known for her sexy and controversial outfits was forbidden under Islamic law.“[The concert is] intended to destroy the nation’s morality,” said Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI) chairman Cholil Ridwan, who added that he had never watched the singer perform and only heard of her “reputation” second-hand.

Apparently, not many Indonesians who know of Lady Gaga's reputation first-hand seem to care. Her show sold more than 25,000 tickets in less than two hours.

Cholil took exception with Lady Gaga’s revealing outfits and sexualized dance moves, claiming that a female dangdut singer who wore similar costumes would also be haram.

But he claimed Lady Gaga was worse. "She is from the West, and she often shows her aurat [private parts of the body] when performing," Cholil said.

While he was aware that many Western singers have already performed in Indonesia, Cholil said maybe it was time to put an end to these "cultural attacks."

Another MUI chairman, Slamet Effendi Yusuf, seemed to be less condemning of Gaga.

“I am sure they know what is good and bad,” he said. “However, I hope Lady Gaga can also wear a proper [dress] in her show.”

I'm sure she will do just that.

Fischer: Muslim Immigrants Must Convert To Christianity

A day hardly goes by when Bryan Fischer doesn't say something insane.

Bryan Fischer, asshole

Now, we know that Bryan Fischer is an Islamaphobe. He's said Muslims have no first amendment rights. He thinks they should be banned from the military. He's urged the US to ban the construction of mosques. He's stated that they are dangerous, unintelligent and mentally ill due to inbreeding. He's called Muslim Americans a toxic cancer to society. It goes on and on.

Yesterday, Fischer continued his ignorant, anti-Muslim tirade, calling (once again) for the conversion of all Muslim immigrants to Christianity.

On his hateful little show, "Focal Point," Fischer stated that all Muslim immigrants have "got to embrace your God, they've got to embrace your faith," claiming once again that "America is a Christian nation."

One of my favorite of Fischer's claims from this particular tirade was, "Muslims worship an entirely different God." You know, that other God who revealed himself to Abraham.

Watch:

Norwegian Black Metal Band 'Taake' Up For Prestigious Music Prize, Despite Anti-Islamic Lyrics

Heavy metal, especially black metal, has always relied heavily on shock value. Throughout the history of metal, bands have looked for new ways to outdo one another.

Taake

In the 80's, many metal bands found their sweet spot in the occult. Taking a cue from Black Sabbath, bands like Venom, Mercyful Fate, and Mayhem took great care in scaring the bejesus out of parents, who often found pentagrams and upside down crosses on their teenage kids' notebooks.

For many years, black metal has been characterized in part by anti-Christian imagery and lyrics. Raging against organized religion has provided a great deal of fuel to black metal bands around the globe.

While there have certainly been some serious implications to the anti-Christian posturing of black metal bands, such as the notorious 1990s Norwegian church burnings, it has mostly been posturing, and nothing more. Shock value.

Where do you go after church burnings? How can you ratchet up the shock value from there?

Take the Norwegian black metal band Taake, who is currently up for the Spelleman Prize, Norway's top music prize (the equivalent of a US Grammy award). Taake has recently ventured into other anti-religious lyrical territories, specifically attacks against Islam.

Via Al Arabiya:

The Norwegian band ‘Taake’ has recently been nominated for a prestigious Norwegian music for best heavy metal band despite lyrics in the album being anti-Islamic.

The Spellemann award is likened to the American Grammy award or the British Brit award in the Scandinavian country’s music industry.

But critics argue that lyrics in their new album’s song ‘Orkan’ (Hurricane) are xenophobic as they include the phrase “To hell with Muhammad and the Mohammedans” and their “unforgivable customs”, whilst the song ends “Norway will awaken”.

Their nomination has sparked outrage among many listeners, claiming the band has gone too far.

Front and back of Taake's 'Anti Islam' t-shirt

Scandanavia has recently had tense relations with the Islamic world, including the infamous Muhammad cartoon controversy the 2010 Stockholm bombing, and the 2011 Norway attacks. Certainly, if a band wanted to ratchet up the shock value, anti-Islam sentiment would seem to be a natural progression for a band like Taake.

On the nominated album 'Noregs Vaapen,' singer Ørjan Stedjeberg refers to Muslims' "unforgivable customs" and calls for a new "kingdom" to "shine through [the] bad years, shame and Christian times".

Taake "do not encourage either violence or racism", Stedjeberg said. "Our view...is that it is shameful to adhere to Christianity or Islam...Taake has never been a political band, and we do not encourage either violence or racism," he said.

Stedjeberg says Taake is an equal-opportunity offender. The band is not anti-Islam, they're anti-religion.

“Our view, in the name of freedom of expression, is that it is shameful to adhere to Christianity or Islam. Incidentally, Christianity is mentioned in the same lyrics, but that doesn’t seem to have been given any emphasis,” he wrote.

The Un-Aired Lowe's 'All-American Muslim' Commercial

In case you've been living under a rock this month, you're aware that Lowe's is receiving a great deal of criticism for pulling their ads from the TLC reality show All American Muslim.

Lowe’s yanked their ad from the series after the Florida Family Association encouraged members to email the program’s advertisers.

The FFA stated:

“The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish. Clearly this program is attempting to manipulate Americans into ignoring the threat of jihad and to influence them to believe that being concerned about the jihad threat would somehow victimize these nice people in this show.”

Now viewers can finally view the un-aired Lowe's commercial.

OK, not really. The below satirical video was directed by Gregory Bonsignore, and stars Rizwan Manji and Parvesh Cheena, from the NBC sitcom Outsourced. (Read more about the project here.)

Joseph Farah Wants To Limit Muslim Immigration, Fears Halal Turkeys

Joseph Farah, the nut-job in chief over at World Nut Daily, believes America has been over-imbibing at the Muslim Immigration Saloon, and he'd like to cut us off and close out the tab.

Joseph Farah and moustache

In a post titled 'Time To Limit Muslim Immigration,' Farah writes:

I say it's time to strictly limit Muslim immigration into the United States to avoid the kinds of disasters we're seeing in Europe.

Of course, Farah first mentions that he's an Arab-American man. But we have grown to understand that after someone proclaims, "Now, to be clear, I have gay friends," we can expect them to say some pretty nasty things about gays.

America doesn't owe anyone – no foreigner anywhere – an engraved invitation to be part of our national covenant and community. We've been far too lax in allowing anyone and everyone who flouts the rules entry to this country. That has to stop immediately. The very next step we need to take is to determine what kind of people will help our nation stay true to its Constitution and other founding principles – and what kind of people will not.

America's No. 1 national objective should be to ensure that we as a nation remain committed to the Constitution...We should not consider bringing in foreigners who seek to transform America into France or England or Iran. America remains a unique, though faltering, experiment in self-government because of its Judeo-Christian heritage. And, if we ever forget that and treat all other belief systems as equal to the worldview of Judaism and Christianity, the America we have known for 235 years will cease to exist.

But we need to do more than just require immigrants seeking entry to the U.S. as visitors or citizens to swear allegiance to our Constitution. We need to put the burden of proof on Muslims to demonstrate their desire to leave the world of Shariah behind them, to renounce its principles as well as to take a formal oath to uphold and affirm America's national covenant.

Furthermore, we need strict national quotas on immigration by Muslims – even those willing to renounce Shariah and swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution.

What is Farah so scared of? Well, he seems to be drinking from fellow WND islamophobe Pamela Geller's egg nog. It's those damned halal turkeys.

There are still more Jews in America than Muslims, though the gap is narrowing quickly. Yet, Jews do not use their influence to ensure that Jews and non-Jews alike are forced to eat according to rabbinical kosher rules. However, it is increasingly difficult for non-Muslims in America today to buy a Thanksgiving turkey that has not been ritually sacrificed to Allah. Most of the meat sold in Costco is also halal.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to eat meat sacrificed to Allah. With Islam a tiny minority religion in the U.S., it seems perverse that people like me have to be careful not to eat food ritually sacrificed to this god of the few.

Listen, Joe. I promise you that no incantation, blessing, or sacrificial slaughter will affect your turkey's deliciousness, and it certainly won't change your religion.

You also might want to check to see how the Native Americans feel about letting any more Christian Europeans into the country. After all, it's pretty hard for them to find a meal that has been prepared in accordance with their belief system, and they've been here for a little longer than 235 years.

Thanksgiving Terrorism: Halal Turkey!

Thanksgiving can be a stressful holiday for many. There's all the traveling, the cooking, and those awkward conversations with ideologically incompatible relatives.

As if this wasn't enough, conservative blogger Pamela Geller has issued a warning: Eating turkey may turn you into a Muslim.

America needs to wake up from their tryptophan-induced slumber, stop worrying about their creeping waistline, and start worrying about creeping Sharia.

Writing in American Thinker, Geller writes:

Did you know that the turkey you're going to enjoy on Thanksgiving Day this Thursday is probably halal? If it's a Butterball turkey, then it certainly is -- whether you like it or not. 

In my book Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance, I report at length on the meat industry's halal scandal: its established practice of not separating halal meat from non-halal meat, and not labeling halal meat as such. And back in October 2010, I reported more little-noted but explosive new revelations: that much of the meat in Europe and the United States is being processed as halal without the knowledge of the non-Muslim consumers who buy it.

For those who are unfamiliar with the word "halal," it is a term designating that a particular food (or object, action, etc.) is seen as permissible under Islamic law.

Whether you like it or not, Butterball has issued a fatwa on your fat ass.

Geller continues her holiday horror story:

A citizen activist and reader of my website AtlasShrugs.com wrote to Butterball, one of the most popular producers of Thanksgiving turkeys in the United States, asking them if their turkeys were halal. Wendy Howze, a Butterball Consumer Response Representative, responded: "Our whole turkeys are certified halal."

In a little-known strike against freedom, yet again, we are being forced into consuming meat slaughtered by means of a torturous method: Islamic slaughter.

Halal slaughter involves cutting the trachea, the esophagus, and the jugular vein, and letting the blood drain out while saying "Bismillah allahu akbar" -- in the name of Allah the greatest.

This is shocking, folks. When little Tommy and Sally fight over that last drumstick, they are unwitting terrorists in training. I don't even want to think about what that wishbone is capable of doing.

Still others refuse to do so on principle: why should we be forced to conform to Islamic norms? It's Islamic supremacism on the march, yet again.

Non-Muslims in America and Europe don't deserve to have halal turkey forced upon them in this way, without their knowledge or consent. So this Thanksgiving, fight for your freedom. Find a non-halal, non-Butterball turkey to celebrate Thanksgiving this Thursday. And write to Butterball and request, politely but firmly, that they stop selling only halal turkeys, and make non-halal turkeys available to Americans who still value our freedoms.

Across this great country, on Thanksgiving tables nationwide, infidel Americans are unwittingly going to be serving halal turkeys to their families this Thursday. Turkeys that are halal certified -- who wants that, especially on a day on which we are giving thanks to G-d for our freedom? I wouldn't knowingly buy a halal turkey -- would you? Halal turkey, slaughtered according to the rules of Islamic law, is just the opposite of what Thanksgiving represents: freedom and inclusiveness, neither of which are allowed for under that same Islamic law.

You got that, America? We can't let the turkey Taliban wage jihad on our day of thanks.

I mean, right?

Well, come to think of it, I have certainly eaten my share of Hebrew Nationals, and I haven't started sporting a kippah.

It's at times like these when it pays to stop for a second and think like a rational person (i.e. not Pamela Geller).

As my friend Stu said, "If you cook the turkey to an internal temperature of 165, it'll kill any Sharia that gets into it."

Fischer, Citing Quran, Calls For Military Ban On Muslims, Apparently Forgetting All That Bible Violence

Bryan Fischer, douchenozzle

If I didn't know any better, I would suspect that The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer is an invention -- brilliant comedy-slash-performance art for the ages, joining the ranks of Tony Clifton and Neil Hamburger.

His anti-LGBT, xenophobic, extreme Christian Right views are so ridiculously over the top, you'd be crazy not to wonder if he's simply an elaborate hoax.

If his extreme ideology wasn't enough, Fischer also lacks any hint of self-awareness, spouting blatant hypocrisy at every turn.

Take his recent post at World Nut Daily, in which he doubles down on his belief that Muslims have no place in the US military.

To my knowledge, I was the first voice in America to call for stopping the practice of Muslims serving in the U.S. military. I did so the day after the Fort Hood shootings in November of 2009.

I endured a withering firestorm of criticism from friend and foe alike, and was summoned to both CNN and the Alan Colmes radio show to explain myself.

Now a prominent Tennessee legislator, Rep. Rick Womick, is joining me in this call. Said he, at a Sharia-awareness-event over the weekend, "If you believe it (the Quran), you are commanded to kill anybody who will not convert to Islam."

And of course he is right about what the Quran teaches the followers of Muhammad and Allah. There are 109 verses in the Quran, by one count, that call for violence against infidel Christians and Jews. One example will suffice: "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them" (Sura 9:5).

What part of "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" do brain-addled idolaters not understand? Muslims have been ordered by their god to kill you! What about that do you not get?

Further on:

Arresting, besieging and lying in ambush is exactly the kind of thing the United States military does to our enemies. Who are Muslims obligated to do that to? Who are the enemies of Islam that devout Muslims are ordered to arrest, besiege and ambush? Why, their fellow soldiers who believe in the God of Christianity.

It would be one thing if this ideology were covert and we were just finding out about it. But it's right there in their holy book where it has been for 1,400 years, where everybody, including our next commander in chief, can read it. It is sheer lunacy not to take this seriously.

In fact, I would suggest that I am showing more honor to Muslims than anyone else, because I am taking their religion more seriously than they are. I believe what Allah said through his Prophet, peace be upon him, that his followers have a sacred duty to slay infidel Americans. It shows a shameless lack of respect for Islam not to believe what their holy book says about their own religion. I have too much respect for Muslims and their sincerity and devotion to make that mistake.

That last paragraph is classic Fischer: Pure unadulterated hatred slathered in smarmy, patronizing righteousness.

While he is certainly correct in that the Quran is not in short supply of violent rhetoric and barbaric ideology, he seems to not also be aware that his Christian Bible is also not in short supply of the same violent rhetoric and barbaric ideology.

If Fischer wishes to ban all adherents of one religion based on the barbarism of its holy book, and the actions of some of its most extreme followers, then he might want to just call for a ban of Christians and Jews as well.

In a comparison of the Quran and the Bible for NPR, religion historian Philip Jenkins stated:

"Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says.

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."

It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.

"In other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law if you do not."

Jenkins notes that the history of Christianity is strewn with herem. During the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the Catholic popes declared the Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars in the 16th, 17th and 19th centuries, Protestants and Catholics each believed the other side were the Amalekites and should be utterly destroyed.

Let's have a look at some of the passages from Fischer's Bible:

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. (Deuteronomy 13:6)

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15)

Surely, Fischer would be the first to state that the above passages are out of context, relate to a particular time and place in human history, and don't represent modern Christianity.

Most Muslims would say the same thing about the passages Fischer has cherry-picked from the Quran.

Violence in the Quran, [Jenkins] and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says.

And certainly, Fischer has a point when he points to some of the sensational stories of Islamic-fueled violence in recent times. We also must understand that these acts are a whole other animal, and most modern Muslims are far less extreme in their religious views than is Fischer.

That may be the popular notion of jihad, says Waleed El-Ansary, but it's the wrong one. El-Ansary, who teaches Islamic studies at the University of South Carolina, says the Quran explicitly condemns religious aggression and the killing of civilians. And it makes the distinction between jihad — legal warfare with the proper rules of engagement — and irjaf, or terrorism.

"All of those types of incidences — [Sept. 11], Maj. Nidal Hasan and so forth — those are all examples of irjaf, not jihad," he says. According to the Quran, he says, those who practice irjaf "are going to hell."

So what's going on here? After all, we all have images of Muslim radicals flying planes into buildings, shooting up soldiers at Fort Hood, trying to detonate a bomb on an airplane on Christmas Day. How to reconcile a peaceful Quran with these violent acts?

El-Ansary says that in the past 30 years, there's been a perfect storm that has created a violent strain of Islam. The first is political: frustration at Western intervention in the Muslim world. The second is intellectual: the rise of Wahhabi Islam, a more fundamentalist interpretation of Islam subscribed to by Osama bin Laden. El-Ansary says fundamentalists have distorted Islam for political purposes.

"Basically what they do is they take verses out of context and then use that to justify these egregious actions," he says.

El-Ansary says we are seeing more religious violence from Muslims now because the Islamic world is far more religious than is the West. Still, Jenkins says Judeo-Christian cultures shouldn't be smug. The Bible has plenty of violence.

"The scriptures are still there, dormant, but not dead," he says, "and they can be resurrected at any time. Witness the white supremacists who cite the murderous Phineas when calling for racial purity, or an anti-abortion activist when shooting a doctor who performs abortions.

In the end, the scholars can agree on one thing: The DNA of early Judaism, Christianity and Islam code for a lot of violence.

Pot, meet kettle.


Further reading: 30 Reasons Why Bryan Fischer is Dangerous and Must Be Stopped

2011 American Values Survey: America Still Not Cool With Atheists

The Public Religion Research Institute has just released their 2011 American Values Survey.

While there are a lot of interesting findings, the most interesting are the findings related to voters' attitudes about the religious affiliation of potential presidential candidates.

Among the findings:

America digs a religious president
Two-thirds of voters say that it is very important (39%) or somewhat important (28%) for a presidential candidate to have strong religious beliefs. However, nearly 1-in-5 (19%) say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who had strong religious beliefs if those beliefs were very different from their own.

Suck it, atheists!
Once again, an atheist president seems to be the most universally reviled, with 67% of all voters saying they would be somewhat to very uncomfortable with an atheist in the White House. Unsurprisingly, Republicans were the most uncomfortable (80%), with 70% of Democrats and 56% of Indpendents also feeling uncomfortable with an atheist president. Americans seem to be more threatened by no religion than by religious views that lead some people to fly planes into buildings.

Not crazy about Muslims (but then again, they're no atheists)
America is slightly more comfortable with a Muslim president than they are with an atheist president, with 64% of all voters feeling uncomfortable with the idea. Republicans are the anomaly here, however, as they feel slightly more uncomfortable (81%) with the idea of a Muslim president, than they do with an atheist president (80%). The majority of Democrats and Independents are uncomfortable with a Muslim president (56% and 58%, respectively). These numbers would likely be higher if most people weren't somewhat used to Obama by now.

In Evangelicals We Trust
In contrast, an Evangelical president is much less threatening, with only 28% of all voters feeling uncomfortable (18% of Republicans, 32% of Democrats, and 31% of Independents). Americans tend to be fearful of the unknown. And while George W. Bush made many uncomfortable, it is a discomfort we are quite familiar with.

The kids are alright?
One trend that is not surprising is that millennials (18-29) seem to be much less bothered by the religious affiliations (or lack of affiliations) that bother older voters...well, except for Mormons.

A little over half (54%) of millennial voters say they would be uncomfortable with a Mormon president, compared to 39% of senior voters (65 and older).  It is unclear if millennials are simply more likely to have seen South Park, or if they are just creeped out by Glenn Beck. I mean, they are weird, right?

56% of millennials say they would feel somewhat uncomfortable with an atheist president (41% would actually feel somewhat comfortable), compared to 77% of senior voters who would feel at least somewhat uncomfortable with an atheist president (this includes the 60% who would feel VERY uncomfortable with an atheist president).

Half of millennials say they would feel at least somewhat uncomfortable with a Muslim president, with nearly as many (47%) saying they would feel somewhat comfortable. Compare that to seniors, of whom 74% would be at least somewhat uncomfortable with a Muslim president.

Progress?

There's much more to dig into, including attitudes on income equality, Obama's performance, and the current GOP candidates-in-running. View the report here (pdf).

The Call: Lou Engle's Plan To Convert Detroit's Muslims

On 11.11.11, the American evangelical firebrand Lou Engle plans on gathering thousands at Ford Field in Detroit, MI, with the hopes of converting the area's large population of Muslims to Christianity.

Who is Lou Engle?

Lou Engle is a senior leader of the International House of Prayer, a well-known Missouri-based evangelical charismatic Christian missions organization which has been called "Kansas City's biggest religious phenomenon in a century." He has been called a radical theocrat, and his sermons have been known to "venture into bloodlust." He has praised Uganda's Kill the Gays Bill.

What is The Call?

The Call is an organization which sponsors prayer meetings devoted to various evangelical causes, including abortion, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage.
Their events feature sermons, prayer, Christian rock music, fasting, and the confessions of personal and national sins. If you are imagining Rick Perry's The Response, you're not too far off. (The International House of Prayer was one of the organizers of Perry's rally.) The Call, like Perry's prayer rally, has been endorsed by many Christian right staples, including Mike Huckabee, Tony Perkins, and James Dobson.

This particular event on 11.11.11 is being held in Detroit, because, according to the organizers, it's a symbol of an America in crisis:

Detroit has become a microcosm of our national crisis—economic collapse, racial tension, and the shedding of innocent blood of our children in the streets and of our unborn.

But the place where they say there is no hope, God has chosen as His staging ground for a great communal healing and His house of prayer for all nations. Therefore, we are calling the nation to a 24-hour solemn assembly, daring to believe that Detroit’s desperation can produce a prayer that can change a nation.

Come and take your place on the wall in Detroit, where we will ask God to send fire on our hearts, to forgive our national guilt and establish justice in our land.

There's a little more to it than that, actually. Nearby Dearborn, MI, has the largest population of Muslims in America. It also is the home of the country's largest mosque. Although The Call's web site makes no overt references to Muslims, Lou Engle would like to convert these Muslims to Christianity. And what a better way to do it than through his brand of Christian love.

Right Wing Watch put together a video of "Engle, along with Rick Joyner and Jerry Boykin, who serve with Engle on The Call’s national leadership team, stating their beliefs that Islam is literally “demonic” and Muslims need to convert to Christianity."

Who wouldn't want to convert after viewing this?

Prince: 'It's Fun Being in Islamic Countries'

The Purple One, who once sang the praises of a woman masturbating with a magazine in a hotel lobby is now singing the praises of women who are forced to wear burqas.

From his exclusive interview with The Guardian:

"It's fun being in Islamic countries, to know there's only one religion. There's order. You wear a burqa. There's no choice. People are happy with that." When asked about the fate of those unhappy with having no choice, he replied:  "There are people who are unhappy with everything. There's a dark side to everything."

Prince began embracing religion around 2001, when he became a Jehovah's Witness (a move that many fans think ruined his music).

"I was anti-authoritarian but at the same time I was a loving tyrant," he told the Guardian. "You can't be both. I had to learn what authority was. That's what the Bible teaches. The Bible is a study guide for social interaction.

"If I go to a place where I don't feel stressed and there's no car alarms and airplanes overhead, then you understand what noise pollution is. Noise is a society that has no God, that has no glue. We can't do what we want to do all the time. If you don't have boundaries, what then?"

The full interview will appear on The Guardian's Film and Music section on Friday.

The GOP Hopefuls: Islamophobia, Hypocrisy, and the Politics of Fear

During the New Hampshire Republican debate, we heard from two potential candidates who were not at all shy about their reluctance to hire Muslims.

Herman Cain, the former Godfather's Pizza CEO, stated that he would not be comfortable with a Muslim in his administration. Cain said, "You have peaceful Muslims and you have militant Muslims – those that are trying to kill us. And so when I said I wouldn't be comfortable I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us."

Cain was backing off from his previous statements to Scott Keyes of Think Progress. Keyes asked, "Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?" Cain answered emphatically: "No, I will not. And here's why. There is this creeping attempt...to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government."

Newt Gingrich jumped in with the following statement: "Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I'm in favor of saying to people, if you're not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period." He continued: "We did this in dealing with the Nazis. We did this in dealing with the Communists. And it was controversial both times and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say, 'No.'"

The first thing that strikes me as silly about this debate is the ridiculous hypocrisy. Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich are not comfortable with Muslims in the administration because, in part, they don't want Islamic beliefs creeping into US law, or informing policy decisions. Yet, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich are perfectly fine with their own supernatural beliefs creeping into US law and informing policy decision.

You can't have your pizza and eat it too.

According to Cain and Gingrich, and other GOP hopefuls, it is perfectly acceptable that the President of the United States claim that God chose them to lead the country, that God is the only entity that can give or take rights, and that an immortal soul enters the egg at the moment of conception, but it is entirely not okay if a cabinet member believes in Allah.

Right out of the gate, their comments show a complete disregard for the Constitution's No Religious Test Clause, which states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Religious tests, in this case would include asking an appointee if they were a Muslim.

The comments also show a complete disregard for the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Of course, all of this does not address the elephant in the room. Gingrich and Cain (and many other Americans, for that matter) believe that Muslims are out to kill Americans. It is true that Muslims have been behind attacks on Americans (here, and abroad). We can all agree that Muslims have killed Americans. Muslims will likely kill Americans again (as will Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and agnostics). But our constitution does not permit us to discriminate against all Muslims simply because some of them have harmed us in the past.

If you apply this logic to any other set of circumstances, it seems absurd. For example, we know, based on sex crime statistics that most child molestations are committed by men. However, knowing this, we can't discriminate against men, denying them jobs where they might be in contact with young children. What we can do in this situation is to take all constitutional and legal precautions to prevent the hiring of someone who might potentially harm these children, or who harmed children in the past. We can perform background checks, check references, conduct numerous interviews, and screen them in any way that is lawful and non-discriminatory. We do what we can do, and then we just have to have faith -- something Cain and Gingrich should know about -- that we have taken the appropriate measures to minimize risk.

We also have to remind ourselves that the remarks of Cain, Gingrich, and other Islamophobes are inflammatory and not reflective of reality.  Let's look at some statistics:

According to a recent study by the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, more non-Muslim Americans were involved in terrorist plots last year than Muslim Americans. There were also more than 20 terrorist plots by non-Muslims in the United States in 2010. Twenty Muslim Americans committed, or were arrested for, terrorist crimes last year, which was down sharply from 2009 when the number was 47.

What we ought to be worrying about is non-terrorism-related murder, if we want to protect Americans.  "Since 9/11, there have been approximately 150,000 murders in the United States, more than 15,000 per year," said the study.

With Muslims making up around one percent of the US population, "it is clear that Muslims are engaging in terrorism at a greater rate than non-Muslims -- though at a low level compared with overall violence in the United States."

Foiled attacks or involvement in a terrorist plot by Muslim Americans stand out because they garner so much media attention, "creating the impression -- perhaps unintentionally -- that Muslim American terrorism is more prevalent than it really is," the study said.

The study "puts into perspective the threat presented by domestic radicalization of Muslim Americans," said David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center.

"Americans should take note that these crimes are being perpetrated by a handful of people whose actions are denounced and rejected by virtually all the Muslims living in the United States," he said.

William Saleton, writing at Slate, describes Cain's Islamophobia as strikingly hypocritical, given his personal experiences with group exclusion:

Cain is familiar with this kind of group exclusion. It was done to him 60 years ago. He had to sit in the back of the bus and drink from "colored" water fountains. He graduated second in his high school class but was refused admission by the University of Georgia. It didn't matter how smart Cain was or how hard he worked. He was black, and the white society around him had decided that blacks were inferior. He was treated as a member of a group, not as an individual. In a word, he was prejudged.

Today, the Ku Klux Klan is still around, but its racism has become more sophisticated. It uses data. "The black male is the greatest perpetrator of both petty crimes and violent crimes in the black communities," says a Klan Web site. Even "Jesse Jackson said that when he's walking down the street at night and he hears footsteps behind him, he's relieved to turn around and see a white person instead of a black person." From this, the Klan concludes, "Minorities … as a people (though there are always exceptions to the rule) are incapable of maintaining or even comprehending the rule of law and order."

That's how prejudice works in the information age. You use statistical averages to generate stereotypes and ultimately to justify differential treatment of people by category.

This is what Cain is now doing to Muslims.

Newt Gingrich stated in the NH debate, "The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed – when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, 'You’re my enemy. I lied.'"

I believe Gingrich, on three occasions, swore to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish 'till death do him part. So much for loyalty oaths.

Newt is out of his skull to believe that he is going to pull some Minority Report shit and preemptively filter out individuals who are going to do harm to the United States. If that were the case, we would have needed a way to prevent rich white men from being hired in presidential administrations. But that's discrimination, Newt, even if it might have saved thousands of American lives (we've lost almost 3 times as many Americans in these oil wars as we did on 9/11).

The Islamophobia of the GOP hopefuls recalls the same scare tactics they have used to rally voters for decades. This is our Red Scare. Like clockwork it crops up every election cycle, this fear of the unfamiliar.  If it's not Commies, it's the gays, or drugs, or illegal immigrants, or socialism, or the Black Panthers.  They use it because fear is visceral. Nothing gets people riled up like the fear that something is out to destroy their American way of life, especially if you can threaten their religion and their lives in one fell swoop. There is now a cottage industry in peddling the fear of Sharia Law, and Gingrich and Cain are in the thick of it.

The bottom line is, if we wish to preserve the freedom guaranteed by our constitution, there is some amount of risk that must be accepted. If we want to go down the road of discriminating against people based on their religious beliefs, then that's a slippery slope. Which beliefs are considered to be indicative of danger to America? And if we are to start equating religious beliefs with danger, I would argue that many Evangelical Christian beliefs are dangerous, and that we should not allow Evangelicals into positions in government administration.

Is it not dangerous enough that we had a President who made war decisions (which led to thousands of American deaths) based on Biblical prophecy?  Is it not dangerous that we have three potential Republican presidential candidates who have each claimed that God sent them messages encouraging them to run for president? Isn't it dangerous enough that Michele Bachmann believes that if the United States turns its back on Israel, "a curse" will be placed on the land, citing Genesis 12:3? Isn't it dangerous that Rick Santorum strongly believes that Intelligent Design should be taught in school, and that the "right to privacy...doesn’t exist in [his] opinion in the United States Constitution" when it comes to sexual behavior?

This bunch at the NH debate is in lockstep with the extreme Christian Right -- moreso than any group of candidates in history. Their concern about dangerous religious ideas infiltrating government is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

The Good News | 6.1.11

I spend a lot of time here pointing out the bad and the ugly that I feel compelled to initiate a periodic trumpeting of the good. Despite ongoing attempts to impede progress, nice things are happening everywhere.  Behold, the good news:

• President Obama has proclaimed June to be Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month (WhiteHouse.Gov)

• American Muslim clerics sign up for evolution (NewScientist)

• For the first time in history, the majority of Americans favor legal gay marriage (Gallup)

• A Florida transgender teen has been crowned prom queen (Proud Parenting)

• The Baltimore-Washington Conference of the United Methodist Church approved a groundbreaking same-sex marriage resolution (Washington Post)

• The Southern Poverty Law Center won a major victory on behalf of cheated farmworkers (SPLC)

• New stem cell implant holds hope for diabetics (KPBS) 

• The ACLU is suing batshit Florida Governor Rick Scott over the drug testing of state employees regardless of suspicion (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

• The ACLU and PPFA have filed a lawsuit challenging South Dakota's completely insane abortion law (RH Reality Check)

• The Health and Human Services Department has told the state of Indiana that its Medicaid plan, which bans funding to Planned Parenthood, is illegal and must be changed. (Feministing)

• The kids are alright (ScienceBlogs)

Silver Bullet Gun Oil: Laced With Pig Fat to Deny Muslims Paradise

The Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch blog reports on a mysterious company selling a product called Silver Bullet Gun Oil. The gun oil is targeted towards the US military, according to their dubious online pitch, and is laced with 13% pig fat with the intention of denying Muslims entrance to paradise.

The Website exclaims (in ridiculous overuse of ALL-CAPS):

SILVER BULLET GUN OIL, is a HIGHLY EFFECTIVE Counter-Islamic terrorist force multiplier. SILVER BULLET GUN OIL was designed specifically to put Demoralizing FEAR and TERROR into SUPPOSEDLY "Fearless" Islamo-Fascist terrorists. It was created with the "TRUE BELIEVER'' in mind. According to the Koran, Allah states, "Any of my followers contaminated by swine at the time of his death will be denied entry to my paradise forever, I HATE THE STENCH OF SWINE."

SILVER BULLET GUN OIL can be used in or on ALL weapons and weapons systems. Put a drop on the remains of ''suicide bombers'' for the same effect-No Paradise! FOR MAXIMUM IMPACT DOWNRANGE; USE ''SILVER BULLET'' AND MAKE SURE THE ISLAMO-FASCIST COWARDS KNOW IT!

The company makes the claim that their product has been used widely throughout the US Armed Forces and by police tactical teams.

It's important to note that the company (which lists no physical address or contacts) claims it isn't at all discriminatory:

THIS PRODUCT IS FOR USE ON ARMED MUSLIM TERRORISTS ONLY.
WE DO NOT PROMOTE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANY RACE OR RELIGION, ONLY TERRORISTS.

Upon seeing the Website, most would likely wonder if these guys are for real.  The folks at the SPLC wondered the same thing, and sent off for the oil:

The gun oil arrived in a box postmarked from Courtland, Va., a town of about 1,300 people 50 miles southwest of Norfolk. Included with the gun oil were decals and playing cards – the ace of spades printed with the words “One Shot, One Soul” to put on the bodies of dead Muslims. Also included in the package was a biography of a World War I American general who supposedly executed 49 Muslims in the Philippines with bullets soaked in pig’s blood.

A gentleman who goes by the name "The Midnight Rider," a self-proclaimed "Servant of Yaweh" has a lot to get off his chest.   A few paragraphs into his description of the company's production, he unleashes a wandering, page-long diatribe that would make Ted Nugent blush, featuring nuggets like the following:

"We the PEOPLE" are sick of playing with a bunch of COWARDLY Voodoo Heathen cave dwelling
baby murderers. Believe what you want for your so-called "Religion of PEACE" but DON'T try to make
AMERICANS believe the ravings of MOHAMMED the pedophile murderer,or his sycophant followers
who advocate the wholesale slaughter of women and children and non-believers in the Muslim
Sharia type of NAZISM.

LAY DOWN YOUR WEAPONS AND GO BACK TO YOUR HOMES OR HOVELS OR whatever SHITPIT you come from or SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCE OF DEATH AND THE UNENDING PAIN OF ETERNAL HELL.

But let's be clear: they do not promote discrimination against any race or religion.

Bin Laden's Ritual Burial at Sea Not Good Enough For Anyone

According to U.S. Defense officials, Osama Bin Laden was buried at sea within 24 hours of his death.  Initially, this raised questions on the blogosphere and in the news, as to why the U.S. would toss the world's most wanted man into the sea so quickly.

According to the official, the U.S. was ensuring that the body was handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition. "This is something that we take very seriously. And so therefore, this is being handled in an appropriate manner," the source stated. In addition, the choice to bury him at sea was due to several factors. There did not appear to be any country willing to accept the body. Secondly, burying him in the U.S. would have been a terrible idea for obvious reasons. Thirdly, any land burial site may have ended up serving as a site of worship for Bin Laden's followers.

The official described the procedure to NBC News as follows:

• The deceased's body was washed and then placed in a white sheet.
• The body was placed in a weighted bag.
• A military officer read prepared religious remarks which were translated into Arabic by a native speaker.
• After the words were complete, the body was placed on a prepared flat board, tipped up, whereupon the deceased's body eased into the sea from the USS Vinson.

However, several Muslim clerics and scholars have expressed that the burial was not aligned with Islamic tradition, and that the U.S.'s handling of Bin Laden's body may only exacerbate anti-American sentiment and further incite attacks against U.S. citizens.

"The Americans want to humiliate Muslims through this burial, and I don't think this is in the interest of the U.S. administration," said Omar Bakri Mohammed, a radical cleric in Lebanon.

"What was done by the Americans is forbidden by Islam and might provoke some Muslims," said another Islamic scholar from Iraq, Abdul-Sattar al-Janabi, who preaches at Baghdad's famous Abu Hanifa mosque. "It is not acceptable and it is almost a crime to throw the body of a Muslim man into the sea. The body of bin Laden should have been handed over to his family to look for a country or land to bury him."

And of course, many American conservatives are not thrilled with the fact that the U.S. followed any Islamic rituals at all when burying Bin Laden. Enter Glenn Beck:

"My problem with this is that we gave this guy a dignified burial at sea, or at least that’s what they said. I really would have put this guy in a meat grinder with a pig, sorry. Oh, you’re not going to get your 72 virgins? Sorry, that sucks to be you. Wrap him up in Hormel, pack him in a can of Spam, man."

The right wing blogs, as well as sites like World Nut Daily and FreeRepublic, seem to echo Beck, in that by taking the high road, the U.S. caved in to Sharia Law.

While we're pointing out the nitpicking from the right:

• Apparently Obama did not gloat enough in his announcement of Bin Laden's death, and is therefore "catering to thugs." 
• And of course Obama only killed Osama to help his reelection.

This is just the beginning. Enjoy the fireworks.

Reluctantly In Defense of Terry Jones

The Terry Jones Quran-burning flap certainly has ignited fierce discussion across the globe. Jones, who burned the Quran after a mock trial in which he declared the book to be guilty of crimes against humanity, is receiving his fair share of criticism -- and death threats (the FBI states that Hezbollah has a $2.4 million bounty on his head.)

While I have no lack of concern for our men and women serving in the Middle East, I don't quite agree with those who are blaming Jones for the brutal deaths of Americans. Is Terry Jones ignorant? Yes. Is he needlessly fanning the flames of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world? Yes. Is he a hate-monger on par with Reverend Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church? Without a doubt.

All that being said, we can choose to blame the beheadings of American citizens on a man who set fire to a book, or we can blame those who did the beheading.

Terry Jones is clearly a man who does not understand (or does not care) that our free speech comes at a cost. "With freedom comes responsibility," and all that.

These beheadings were the result of religious fanaticism and scriptural literalism. If Terry Jones had drawn a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, and had he not already shown his colors as a religious extremist himself, Americans would be supporting him in droves.

There are two lessons to learn here. One is that although we enjoy freedom of speech, we need to understand that our actions have consequences. The other is that we have to stop accepting that people will behead other people for disrespecting their religious beliefs.

Terry Jones is a grade-A douchebag. But sometimes it takes a douchebag to remind us that we should never comprimise our freedom. It took a juvenile cartoon in Larry Flynt's Hustler Magazine to remind us that free speech includes the right to be distasteful and offensive. Granted, nobody died as a result of that cartoon. But had Southern Baptists become so enraged as to behead readers of pornography, would the correct response be to jail the cartoonist?

If, as a result of the violent response to the Quran burning, we limit what we can and cannot say about religion, we become less free as a society. (Obviously, hate speech is another matter.)

It is insensitive, ignorant and stupid to do what Terry Jones did. But it is completely and utterly insane to take an innocent human being's head off because someone else did something offensive.

Unfortunately, until people can get their heads out of the Bronze Age, people will be willing to kill other people due to religious beliefs. But by accepting that people will die for offending religious beliefs, we are complicit in impeding the progress necessary to eliminate such needless bloodshed.