| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
With many Conservatives slamming Bush these days, due to his endorsement of the immigration bill (which I had great concerns about as well), he can use some support.
Yesterday GWB went to a mosque in Washington D.C. LGF reports that this is a Saudi-funded mosque - in other words, it is part of the multi-billion dollar operation run by Saudi Arabia to spread Wahhabism around the world. From Frontpage:
The religious and philosophical justifications for promoting Jihad -which means holy war - around the world, is found in the Quran, says Dr. Hussein Shehata, a professor at al-Azhar University in Cairo. According to Dr. Shehata, the following terms in the Quran combine to justify the spreading of Jihad: in Arabic- Al-Jihad bi-al-Lisan - which means - Jihad of the Tongue, and al-Jihad bi-al-Qalam - Jihad of the Pen. Both combine for preaching and writing to promote Jihad.
This command is complemented by Al-Jihad bi-al-Mal - the Financial Jihad; namely, raising money for needy Muslims and supporting the Jihad warriors - known as the Mujahideen. These are the commands that form the justification to spread the Jihad.
On his website, on March 3, 2004, the same Dr. Shehata explained the uniqueness and the reason for the financial Jihad commandment as being, quote: "a trial of strength of Muslim faith" and "a means to purify the soul from stinginess". It is through the financial Jihad, he says, that Allah gives the wealthy Muslims the opportunity to allocate some of their money for the Da'awa (literally - the call for Islam), which is the Islamic effort to teach or convert people to Islam.
In view of the fact that these commandments are interpreted as an integral part of Jihad, it is not surprising that Saudi Arabia, according to various Saudi official publications, have spent somewhere between $70-87 billion on the spread of Wahhabism around the world since the oil boom began in the mid- 1970's. This money was not only spent in Muslim/Arab countries. Large amounts were and are still being spent in the West, including in the US.
The Saudis have established endowments for American universities, have set up centers for Islamic and Arab studies, and have distributed generous scholarships, which often include visits to Saudi universities in programs similar to the one attended by Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who was indicted last week for joining Al-Qaeda and for plots to assassinate President Bush and King Abdullah of Jordan. Abu Ali, by the way, graduated from the Saudi Academy in Alexandria, Virginia, in the USA, which is sponsored by the Saudi embassy in Washington, and IN which many other young Americans are being indoctrinated in Wahhabi Islam.
Many have criticized GWB for speaking at this mosque, believing that it legitimizes these Saudi operations on our soil. From an LGF post prior to the event:
Tomorrow President Bush is returning to the Saudi-funded Islamic Center, to address its rededication ceremony-and further legitimize radical Islamic groups masquerading as "moderates," without once asking them to renounce their openly-expressed support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hizballah.
These are good criticisms. I'd rather hear Bush say what the government of Prime Minister John Howard said in Australia:
TONY JONES: Now, over the past 24 hours you've been repeating the notion that migrants, evidently Islamic migrants, who don't like Australia, or Australian values, should think of packing up and moving to another country. Is that a fair assessment?
[Treasurer] PETER COSTELLO: What I've said is that this is a country, which is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you. This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don't feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they'd feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs.
But let's look at what GWB did say:
This is what freedom offers: societies where people can live and worship as they choose without intimidation, without suspicion, without a knock on the door from the secret police. The freedom of religion is the very first protection offered in America's Bill of Rights. It is a precious freedom. It is a basic compact under which people of faith agree not to impose their spiritual vision on others, and in return to practice their own beliefs as they see fit. This is the promise of our Constitution, and the calling of our conscience, and a source of our strength.
The freedom to worship is so central to America's character that we tend to take it personally when that freedom is denied to others. Our country was a leading voice on behalf of the Jewish refusniks in the Soviet Union. Americans joined in common cause with Catholics and Protestants who prayed in secret behind an Iron Curtain. America has stood with Muslims seeking to freely practice their beliefs in places such as Burma and China.
Many Muslims listening know that it's a central tenet of Islam that other religions are not to be accepted. GWB is telling them that that part of Islam is incompatible with America, and that we'll take any attempt to act on that "personally." GWB specifically named the Jewish religion as one that America joins with "in common cause." GWB continued:
The greatest challenge facing people of conscience is to help the forces of moderation win the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East. We've seen the expansion of the concept of religious freedom and individual rights in every region of the world -- except one. In the Middle East, we have seen instead the rise of a group of extremists who seek to use religion as a path to power and a means of domination.
These self-appointed vanguard -- this self-appointed vanguard presumes to speak for Muslims. They do not. They call all Muslims who do not believe in their harsh and hateful ideology "infidels" and "betrayers" of the true Muslim faith. This enemy falsely claims that America is at war with Muslims and the Muslim faith, when in fact it is these radicals who are Islam's true enemy. (Applause.)
They have staged spectacular attacks on Muslim holy sites to divide Muslims and make them fight one another. The majority of the victims of their acts of terror are Muslims. In Afghanistan, they have targeted teachers for beatings and murder. In Iraq, they killed a young boy, and then booby-trapped his body so it would explode when his family came to retrieve him. They put children in the backseat of a car so they could pass a security checkpoint, and then blew up the car with the children still inside. These enemies bombed a wedding reception in Amman, Jordan, a housing complex in Saudi Arabia, a hotel in Jakarta. They claim to undertake these acts of butchery and mayhem in the name of Allah. Yet this enemy is not the true face of Islam, this enemy is the face of hatred.
Men and women of conscience have a duty to speak out and condemn this murderous movement before it finds its path to power. We must help millions of Muslims as they rescue a proud and historic religion from murderers and beheaders who seek to soil the name of Islam.
GWB is saying that American policy is that those who riot and kill in the name of Islam are considered to be acting against Islam and are not protected by freedom of religion.
He's saying that those who oppose the religious freedom of others in the name of Islam are considered to be acting against Islam and are not protected by freedom of religion.
This is of huge significance. GWB has shown great vision and leadership. He's produced a new U.S. policy that shows the way to protecting U.S. freedom of religion, while also protecting the U.S. constitution from Islamists. He's doing it by saying loud and clear to Muslims that those pursuing Islam as a political project which seeks to trample on Western freedoms - as is being done so successfully throughout Europe - will be considered enemies of Islam, and of the U.S.
GWB has acted on the goal identified by Daniel Pipes:
Our goal must be nothing other than the modernizing of Islam. No other enemy is as far reaching [as that of the radical Islamists] - that was the message of 9-11. We must overhaul the Muslim world as we did Germany and Russia - we changed them.
...We must defeat them - that is, convince them that their goal is hopeless - as we did the Fascists in 1945 - as we did the Marxist-Leninists in 1991.
...We have the power. There is no great power that faces us.
I have no doubt that many in that mosque understood GWB's message.
#1
#2Why don't we start talking about what's going on inside Black Churches?
This whole episode concerning Barack Obama and his family church has reminded me of a family incident in 1963.
My mother and step-father, both Jewish, and I decided to attend a service immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy to honor him. The service was to be held in a new synagogue (not my family's) and we had heard that the rabbi was a wonderful orator. We arrived in anticipation of being comforted for the loss of our leader, instead there was a diatribe against Joseph Kennedy, the 'Sins of the Father', and anti-Semeticism in America.
Many in the congregation were survivors of the Holocaust and Soviet Jewry refugees.
However, during this 'sermon', my mother stood up and challenged this rabbi. We walked out of the synagogue, never to return. While I was just nine years old at the time, I remember my mother taking this stand and both of my parents taught me that this was not appropriate for a religious leader in the pulpit to do. She was particularly upset at the attacks on the United States.
I am a Christian and I will not associate myself with any denomination or pastor/rector which uses the pulpit for political or hateful rhetoric.
It is inexcusable that Barack Obama, or any African-American would sit through these firey sermons that spread hatred against the white community or damn the very country where Obama's candidacy has been embraced by Americans of walks of life. It is inexcusable that the Obamas found that such a hateful man, an appropriate role-model and mentor.
I question Obama's Christianity, discernment, integrity, and leadership ability.
If the tables had been reversed and it was a white pastor that raled against the black community, the political future of the white candidate would be over. Even a white candidate who was a member of a 'restricted' club would have difficulties. One judges a person by the houses of worship and clubs one is a member of; it is indicative of his mindset.
Mitt Romney was judged harshly by the fact that he was LDS. Have you ever heard racist rhetoric from Mormon leaders?
We should hold Obama to the same standards that the African-American community would hold up a white candidate who was a member of a church with a racist pastor.
The African-American community should understand that they should not accept these outrageous pastors.
I'm proud that my parents took a stand in the face of something similar; I would expect a future leader to do no less.
And by-the-way, churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. that allow politics and hate should lose their tax-exempt status.
#3For most of my life growing up in the rural Southeast (U.S.) as a non church goer, I was vaguely aware that the type of rhetoric we've heard from Obama's pastor was common place in many (not all) black churches. I casually noted the level of politicization and socialization of the gospel in those churches but, not having a genuine spirituality of my own, never gave it much thought, particularly the political/social consequences that follow it. I also recall observations I had made about the length of time "church" lasted for the black folks in my community. The ordinary service lasted for 4-6 hours on a given Sunday with a good portion of the post-sanctuary time spent in the parking lot or grounds of the church fellowshiping. Of course, it wasn't usual to see that that the later hours of that fellowshiping consisted of some open beer drinking, smoking, and cussing. Now, I'm not saying that I only observed black church goers drinking, smoking and cussing. It was just odd to me that the white ones always left the church grounds to do their post-sanctuary "sins" after their 20 minute Sunday moring sermon. Coming to a genuine faith in Christ later in life, I've often thought about those casual observations, among others, that I had made as a young person. Specifically with respect to the black churches, I've thought more about the political/social ramifications of the Jeremiah Wright type rhetoric, but, more importantly, about whether there's any real spiritual food to be had in such settings. I guess it boils down to whether the genuine cause of Christ is actually being served in those churches, and whether individuals in them are actually being built up in the faith personally so that cultural transformation and healing can be realized.
After the offense had worn off the barrage of Rev. Wright rhetoric we've all been deluged with these past 2 weeks, I found myself watching an interview with parisioners from Rev. Wright's church where his comments were defended and the charge repeatedly leveled that only black folk could understand the comments in their proper context. This intrigued me. How could these statements have been taken out of context? And why is it that only certain people could understand them in their proper context? After digging around, I found a reserach paper by Ron Rhodes on "Liberation Theology". After reading it, the statements by the parishoners in this interview made perfect sense and so did Rev. Wright's remarks -- And no this is not going to be a defense of them. You can read the full paper here if you care to: http://www.equip.org/site/apps/s/google_search.asp?q=Liberation+Theology+Rhodes&btnG=+&entqr=0&sort=date:D:L:d1&output=xml_no_dtd&c=muI1LaMNJrE&ie=ISO-8859-1&client=equip_frontend&b=2574195&ud=1&site=equip&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=equip_frontend . What the parisioners were really trying to say was that you can't understand Rev. Wright apart from the proper narrative (not context). That narrative is Liberation Theology, more specifically, Black Liberation Theololgy since liberation theology, as the paper points out, is an umbrella term for a family of theologies consisting of Latin American, Black and feminist varieties. What fascinated me about this work was the perspective this gave me, not only into the black church community here, but the socialist revolutions in Latin America. Mix in a some Marxist categories for soical analysis with healthy doses of post modernism and moral equivocation, superimpose your personal narrative on scripture and - voila- you have perverted the gospel of Christ to your own temporal political and social ends.
If anyone really wants to dig into the underpinnings of Wright's Rhetoric, this paper is a good place to start.
#4A.W. and Lewt - thanks for these great posts! I have added a new article today about Obama.
You had Great Concerns? According to your search routine, your last post on the topic of migration to the US is dated December 2006.