Follow-Up on Satanists Handing Out Activity Books in Schools

We all knew that the goal of at least one post per day wasn’t going to happen, but, oh well. As I wait in the airport for a flight to board, I have a follow-up post to my post summarizing three of the things Satanists were doing in 2014 to try to show that religious freedom applies to everyone.

And in this case, we get the small, 4-paragraph followup from WFTV, “Satanic Coloring Book Kills Bible Giveaway.”

For those who are too lazy to click on either link (mine or WND’s) the idea was that a public school district in Florida was having a Bible give-away, on school property, during school time. And so, if they were going to do this, so as to not violate the Establishment Clause (state-run school therefore can’t favor one religion over another), the Satanists asked if they could give away coloring books. The school had three choices: Face a lawsuit for saying no, agree, or stop all give-aways. I would prefer that last one. It looked like they were going to do the second one.

And, based on the WND headline from three days ago, they went with the third one.

Let me be clear on my position: The Bible giveaway should not have ever been permitted. That’s for church. Not for school. I think that it’s much better to NOT do this than to allow everything. Public schools should not be in the habit of promoting or appearing to promote any religion, in my opinion.

Surprisingly, “larryblk” has the top-highest-rated comment and it is: “That’s the way religious freedom works – everyone gets to participate. If you aren’t willing to let everyone participate, then you can’t have anyone participate. Courts have been very clear on this.”

Huzzah! Unfortunately, his is the only comment that’s reasonably highly rated that advocates this position. The rest are ranting about the decline of morals and “SATANISM came through by ROCK MUSIC” and various other stupidity.

Oh, and over at The Friendly Atheist, Hemant points out that Glen Beck also has a view on this (hint: he thinks it’s national suicide).

Rupert Murdoch P0wned by J.K. Rowling, Except According to WND Commenters

Over the weekend, in response to the terrorist attack in France, Rupert Murdoch (owner of FOX “news” and various other companies) tweeted the following: “Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.”

Regardless of your political or religious leanings, you can probably see the the idiocy in that statement. If you can’t, the author best known for her Harry Potter series pointed it out to him in two tweets: “I was born Christian. If that makes Rupert Murdoch my responsibility, I’ll auto-excommunicate. http://t.co/Atw1wNk8UX” and “@dom209 The Spanish Inquisition was my fault, as is all Christian fundamentalist violence. Oh, and Jim Bakker.”

In other words, one cannot hold everyone who follows a particular belief system – religious or otherwise – responsible for everyone else who follows that belief system. Seems pretty obvious.

But then, there’s the World Net Daily audience. WND published a three-paragraph snippet from NBC News headlined, “J.K. Rowling Goes Bonkers on Rupert Murdoch.” Hyperbole much?

WND commenters reacted in the opposite manner as you might expect any normal person to do. There’s the top-rated comment by “bluevanda” which states, “When did the opinion of a writer of fictional books on witches have any importance in the governing of any nation? Murdoch was right.”

Or more succinctly, second-highest rated comment by “prometheus2” was, “Murdoch was spot on . . .”

Or the third-highest rated comment was by “TruBluAmerican,” who wrote, “What a dumb twit! So, why doesn’t she let Harry stop fighting the ‘evil’ and succumb to it?”

And, just for fun, since this is WND and there are lots of fundie Christians there who believe in literal witches and wizards, there’s the comment by “02word,” all spelling, grammar, and line breaks preserved:

“J.K…… the Bible says that there are NO good witches or wizards they are all evil in the sight of GOD.
You are an agent of satan and luring children into a false hope which is an abomination to GOD! Because of You , a 6 yr. old called Jesus weak & stupid..repent and turn before you can’t.”

Purposely Inflammatory Headlines, Part Lots+1: U.S. School Makes Girls Follow Islamic Dress Code!

One of World Net Daily’s non-trademarked trademarks is to write purposely inflammatory headlines that distort the story to make their readership pissed off and riled up. The latest by Bob Unruh (January 8, 2015), is no exception: “Firestorm: U.S. School Makes Girls Follow Islamic Dress Code.”

That headline sounds as though a normal school in the US is making girls cover up from head to toe with only a slit for their eyes. Then I thought, “Okay, maybe this is a private, religious school,” in which case they would be permitted to do that because religious schools have a lot of leeway. In which case it’s no worse than nuns hitting students with rulers (I’d say its less worse) or the other kinds of dress codes. This is America where parents have the religious freedom to send their students to religious schools that have dress codes.

But, this story isn’t even that. This story is about an elective social studies class on world religions, that has a non-required field trip to different religious places of worship. And, the school sent a letter home with students that explained to parents that the students who were going to go on this field trip would be required to follow the dress codes at each place of worship. But, I don’t see anyone complaining about yarmulkes for boys going to the Temple/Synagogue.

In fact, the WND article says (sort of) as much in the first two paragraphs:

The Douglas County School District in Colorado, under fire for saying that schoolgirls might have to cover up from head to ankle for a field trip to a Muslim mosque, has confirmed that such Shariah requirements will be enforced on the outing.

“Students who choose to attend the [Rocky Heights Middle School] world religion field trip are expected to respect the dress code of the host facility,” the school said in a statement posted online.

Maybe I’m a left-wing crazy, but to me, this does not seem like a ridiculous requirement. The students will be -for all intent and purpose – a guest at each place of worship (“the Denver Mosque, the Assumption Greek Orthodox Cathedral, and the Rodef-Shalom Synagogue”). If you are a guest, you should be following the rules.

Part of the problem, however, is that Islamophobe-in-Chief (and WND Commenter) Pamela Geller got wind of this:

The note sent to families, according to a report from Islam expert and commentator Pamela Geller, said: “The world religions field trip is next Tuesday, January 13. We will be visiting the Denver Mosque, the Assumption Greek Orthodox Cathedral, and the Rodef-Shalom Synagogue. We will then eat lunch at Park Meadows Food Court. Students must either bring a sack lunch or money to purchase lunch at the food court.”

It continued: “THERE IS A DRESS CODE FOR THIS TRIP: All students must wear appropriate long pants. Ankles must be covered. Girls must bring wide scarves or hooded sweatshirts for the mosque.”

Geller said the “subjugation and oppression of women are enshrined under the Shariah.”

“Young school girls should not be forced to ‘respect’ a dress code that represents honor violence, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, child marriage, et al,” she wrote.

I would ask Ms. Geller to read Leviticus in her Bible before casting judgement on the literal tenants of strict Islam. There, she would find such light reading as, if you have sex with your neighbor’s wife, both are to be killed (Leviticus 18:20). Or, just general blasphemy is punishable by stoning to death (Leviticus 24:14).

But, back to the article, even Bob Unruh apparently felt the need to be somewhat fair and point out that the field trip is optional:

Officials explained the field trip is an option, not a requirement.

“If the decision is made to not participate in a field trip, alternative educational opportunities are provided,” the district said. “This is true for any DCSD field trip, including the RHMS world religion field trip.”

If students do choose to participate in the field trip, they are subject to the Shariah dress requirements of the mosque, the school said.

“As part of providing an authentic learning opportunity for students, DCSD provides an optional field trip to further support the world religion course, thus allowing students who choose to participate to discuss what they experienced on the field trip with their family members and eventually leading to the development of their own views,” the school district said.

Geller observed: “Here again we see that anywhere American law and Islamic law conflict, it is American law that has to give way.”

But again, we see the over-reaction by Pamela Geller. This is not a case of American law versus Islamic law. This is a case of an optional field trip for students in an optional class to better understand world religions. This has nothing to do with American law, and I would almost say this has nothing to do with Islamic law but rather moderate Islamic customs when in places of worship.

Go Into the Woods to Destroy America, According to World Net Daily

I thought a lighter piece of news might be in order for this post, after ranting in the last few about Christian Privilege and related issues. This is also a recent one, posted only yesterday, by WND’s Drew Zahn: “Disney Musical Teaches One of Today’s Biggest Lies.”

This also lets me write about something that WND does that I haven’t discussed before: movie reviews. They tend to review popular or Christian-related movies to let their audience know if it’s worth seeing. From an ultra-conservative Christian viewpoint.

And if you haven’t figured it out by the title of the post, this is about the musical-turned-movie, “Into the Woods” (which happens to be originally by openly homosexual songwriter Stephen Sondheim — something that seems strangely absent from this article/review).

Drew spent most of his article explaining his title, why the overall theme of the movie “teaches one of today’s biggest lies.” Apparently, that lie is moral relativism:

The key message that resonates at the film’s climax is a comfort and encouragement, telling the film’s children (and those in the audience), “You are not alone. Someone is on your side” – it’s a message targeted right at the hurts and wounds of a generation too often growing up without parents or even a single parent in the home.

And while I’ll give the film kudos for speaking to today’s culture, it makes the grievous error of offering audiences today’s culture’s answers, which are thoroughly postmodern and completely bankrupt.

The common hallmark of postmodernism being relativism, particularly in the area of ethics, my generation and those after have a tendency to toss away the social institutions and morals of their forbears (same-sex “marriage” being an obvious example) in favor of determining truth on their own, experientially, and thus completely relativistic.

Postmoderns insist, “What’s right and wrong for you isn’t necessarily what’s right and wrong for me.”

This stands in complete contrast to the Word of God, the character of God and even what wiser generations called “common” sense. It’s harmful, sophomoric and incredibly narcissistic.

I’m reminded of the passages of Scripture that proclaim the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, the fool is wise in his own eyes and there is a way that seems right to a man, but it leads to death.

And yet, this relativistic garbage is the moral lesson of “Into the Woods.”
At the film’s resolution, the characters sing, “Wrong things, right things, who can say what is true? … Witches can be good; giants can be nice. … You decide what’s right; you decide what’s good.”

You decide what’s right and good? That’s postmodernism’s greatest lie.

I found it interesting that he would harp on this as being a postmodern idea, or that it’s meant to speak to this generation. The musical itself is several decades old, having debuted in 1986. Personally (and why I chose to write about this), it is my favorite musical. I grew up with Bernadette Peters as The Witch, and I have mixed feelings about the new adaptation, though I’m willing to give it a go.

The music is wonderful, the different fairy tales are woven together very well, and I got something different out of it as I personally grew up, from the fantasy stories and the idea that actions have consequences when I was younger; to, as a teenager, dealing with parents not always knowing what’s “right” and the idea that even in the face of adverse consequences, you can still sometimes turn them around (e.g., Jack’s mother singing in the first act, “slotted spoons don’t hold much soup” to, at the end of the musical, “slotted spoons can catch the potato”); to more adult themes when I was older, such as the heavy sexual innuendo between The Wolf and Red Riding Hood, the adultery between the Prince and Baker’s Wife, and – as Drew points out – the idea that we’re all somewhat making things up as we go along, that no one really does have a monopoly on “right” and “wrong,” we all just try to do right by ourselves, our family, and our larger social groups.

But, therein lies Drew’s problem, and it’s one that is antithetical to most organized religions: The religion must tell you what is “right” and “wrong,” for without constantly learning it from Those In Charge in the religion, you cannot be controlled. In other words, without the threat of an absolute judge, and an absolute moral code, and my religion is the only one that has it Correct, then religions would lose many of their followers. Not only that, but it’s only “us,” the Select Few, who are able to interpret those Absolute Words to tell you, the masses, what you have to do.

“Into the Woods” has as one of its primary messages that morals do change, and not everything you’ve been told is necessarily correct (e.g., the “Witches can be right / giants can be good” lines have the inherent assumption that most people assume witches are wrong and giants are bad, yet the characters have learned that the opposite can be true). As I said, this is antithetical to most dogmatic religions.

So, I can understand Drew’s issue from that standpoint, and I think him having that as his major issue, and warning parents, shows an inherent fear of what could happen if their children are exposed to it:

“Into the Woods” is creative, has some beautiful sets and few very well done musical numbers. Despite its inconsistencies, it’s reasonably entertaining. But it’s not a story I recommend telling, because, well … “children will listen.”

To end this post, I’ll include some of the “Content advisory” that accompanies all of these movie reviews, which I find fairly humorous:

“Into the Woods,” rated PG, contains three profanities and no obscenities.

The movie has some kissing and cleavage, but there are two scenes in particular that carry tones of sexuality – one where the wolf is leering over Little Red Riding Hood, and while he’s lusting after her as a meal, there are some sexual-predator undertones; and another where Prince Charming seduces the baker’s wife into a prolonged kissing scene that clearly themes adultery, even if there is no nudity or sex depicted.

The movie includes several allusions to violence – including the wicked stepmother cutting off the wicked stepsisters’ toes, the fall of the giant to his death, a woman falling off a cliff, women blinded by birds, a man thrown into a thicket of thorns and the killing of the big, bad wolf – but most aren’t actually seen on screen. There are, however, three instances where Jack’s mother slaps him in the head and some minor cuts and bruises.

The film’s fantasy storyline centers on a witch who performs magic on several occasions, gathers the ingredients for a magic potion and works to break a curse. She also raises a dead creature back to life. The occult content, however, is kept to a minimum, considering, through there is a scene where the witch can be heard murmuring an incantation. There is no significant religious content.

I find it humorous because I’m imagining this up-tight religious guy with a clipboard sitting in every movie, and literally putting down check marks and tick marks next to every instance of everything he notes above. Which just makes me laugh, wryly, and quietly to myself as I shake my head.

If Everyone Believes that Liquid Water is 500°F, Are They Wrong?

I wrote this post title while watching a new TV show, so forgive me if it sounds horribly contrived. If you’re at all familiar with skepticism or critical thinking, you should recognize the title as an argument from popularity logical fallacy: Just because “everyone” believes something, that does not make it true.

In this case, this comes from the WND post from September 26, 2014: “Vast Majority of Americans Support School Prayer.”

Ahem:

Marriage Acceptance versus Legality (©XKCD)

What does this XKCD comic have to do with school prayer? Nothing, but it has to do with what’s accepted by a certain fraction of the United States population versus what’s legal. The US Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage in 1967. It was not until 1995 that >50% of Americans thought that two people of different races should be allowed to marry. All because a majority or minority of people think something does not make it right or wrong.

Similarly, just because (according to the latest poll) 61% of Americans think are in favor of daily prayer in the classroom, that does not mean it is constitutional. The problem is simple: The Constitution has a separation of church and state, and therefore public schools cannot lead students in any form of prayer. If students want to pray on their own time, they can do that. But teachers and administrators can’t lead it, and there can’t be generic “Okay everyone, pray to yourself for a minute” because that excludes people who are not religious or who are members of religions that don’t pray.

Unfortunately, most WND commenters don’t get this.

Rules Apply to Everyone but Christians, Part 8: Denied a Job for Keeping the Sabbath Holy

This one has several components to it, so let’s get right down to the story bo Joe Kovacs on September 17, 2014: “Dunkin’ Donuts Refuses to Hire Sabbath-Keeper.”

Note the way that headline is written. Already, it implies that “keeping the sabbath” is something good and should be protected, while Dunkin’ Donuts (which I keep wanting to write as “Doughnuts”) is horribly bad for infringing on that “right.”

And that’s really the main theme of the article. I’ll quote the few relevant parts:

[A] Dunkin’ Donuts franchisee … rescinded its job offer to a Christian man solely because he wanted to keep the weekly Sabbath holy, which is one of the Ten Commandments.

Darrell Littrell of Asheville, North Carolina, is a Seventh-day Adventist who holds the belief he cannot work on the Sabbath day, which he observes from sunset on Friday until sunset on Saturday.

After reading that selectively quoted part (selectively quoted for reasons you’ll read in a moment), my classic response is: You don’t have a right to be treated special in your job just because you don’t want to work on a certain day when everyone else who works at that job has to be able to work that day. That would be special privilege, rather than persecution for not allowing it. Plain and simple.

What makes this story have “several components to it,” and why I selectively quoted that first sentence, is this set of sentences (this time, the first sentence without the selective quoting):

The U.S. federal government is now suing a Dunkin’ Donuts franchisee […]. […]

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Around Dec. 15, 2012, Littrell applied for the position of a donut maker at the Citi Brands’ manufacturing facility in Arden, North Carolina, and was later interviewed by the company’s plant manager.

“On Jan. 3, 2013, the plant manager offered Littrell the donut maker position, and told Littrell he would start work the next afternoon, a Friday, at 3 p.m.

“Littrell responded that he could not start work on Friday afternoon because as part of his faith, he does not work from sunset on Friday until sunset on Saturday. The plant manager responded by revoking Littrell’s job offer.”

The EEOC has now filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against Citi Brands, LLC, the franchisee in question for Dunkin’ Donuts. The action comes after it first attempted to reach a voluntary settlement through administrative conciliation process.

The legal action is seeking back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Littrell, as well as injunctive and other non-monetary relief.

“Employers should be mindful that it is against the law to discriminate against an applicant or an employee based on his religion, including the observance of the Sabbath,” said Lynette Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte district.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from refusing to hire people because of their religion, and requires employers to make an effort at a reasonable accommodation for sincerely held religious beliefs.

Wow. I think I’ve written once or twice about the EEOC (yup— once when talking about hiring/firing due to sexual orientation), and it was favorable.

This, however, I think is out of line. Yes, you canNOT refuse to hire someone because of their religion or desire to celebrate certain religious days. But, I do not think a reasonable interpretation of that is to say you MUST hire someone even when their interpretation of their religion means they can’t work 14% of the time when anyone else in that position must be available to work during that time.

The third component of this story is that this is clearly a government regulatory agency imposing a lawsuit on a business. Which s the bane of most conservative causes (one of the major themes of conservatives in the US is smaller government, less regulation, corporations have more autonomy in general). Therefore, this seems like something that would generate some sort of cognitive dissonance.

And it did, at least a little, amongst the 1089 comments. Such as the top-rated one by “Just Me:” “To say that I’m stunned that the EEOC is defending a Christian would be the classic understatement.”

However, a few high-ranked comments are ones that support my points. Such as, “StampOutLiberalism” who wrote: “As a Christian, I appreciate this man’s conviction to his faith, but Dunkin’ Donuts has a business to run and if Mr. Littrell can’t fulfill the job requirements he should look elsewhere for employment. The Government shouldn’t be involved in this.”

Or Dave:

Strangely, I find myself on the side of the business this time, and not rooting for the Christian person. That’s because for Dunkin Donuts this isn’t a religious freedom issue at all.

1. They had a job opening in a certain time slot.
2. They hired a guy to work in that time slot.
3. The guy refused to work in that time slot.
4. Say goodbye to the guy, and go back to Craig’s List to fill the spot.

You’d have to think there’s something strange about a guy who would go through steps 1-4, and then add a fifth step — Blame the employer for offering him a job in a time slot that he refused to work.

Let It Go / Let It Go / Fake Stories of Persecution!

This one doesn’t quite make it into my “Fake News that WND Posts” series because the story itself is real. It’s the spin that’s not. In this case, Joe Kovacs wrote on December 2, 2014, “Disney Goes Goofy Over Mention of ‘God.'”

To make a long, blown way out of proportion story short, Disney lets people given input on their website of “What’s your favorite thing about the holidays?” (Notice another “issue” there: They don’t say Christmas!) When young Lilly Anderson tried to write, “God, my family, my church and my friends,” Disney’s automated form flagged the word “God” and said, “Please be nice!” without further elaboration.

Cue the Christian Persecution complex! Of course, instead of reaching out to Disney, the mother, Julie Anderson, took her crusade straight to Fox “news” where Todd Starnes, perpetual exaggerator (or maker-upper) of Christian Persecution, was more than happy to take on the case.

The mother and daughter even got to be on “Fox & Friends” that Tuesday morning to talk about it, while the tag line at the bottom of the screen read, “WHY DID DISNEY BLOCK GOD?”

For a very good reason, as Kyle Mantyla explained in Right Wing Watch’s “Todd Starnes: Wrong Again” on December 3, had the statement from Disney:

“Disney employs word filtering technology to prevent profanity from appearing on our websites. Unfortunately, because so many people attempt to abuse the system and use the word “God” in conjunction with profanity, in an abundance of caution our system is forced to catch and prevent any use of the word on our websites. The company would have been happy to explain our filtering technology to the inquiring family had they contacted us.”

Disney would’ve been happy to explain that had they been asked. Obviously, since they would like to avoid negative publicity. But no, instead, the Good Christian Soldiers soldiered to Fox to present their case instead:

Disney certainly seems to be implying that thanking God is not nice. Well, neither is blocking the Almighty from a website.

Julie said her daughter is a very loving and accepting child who was raised to understand that not everyone believes in God.

“We’ve always told her that inevitably there would come a day when she would be discriminated against for her faith but we never thought Disney would be the source,” she said.

Had Todd Starnes been any kind of journalist with any sort of integrity, he would’ve attempted to contact Disney about it before publishing his story. But, that would’ve interfered with what he was trying to sell. And, the über-conservatives wouldn’t’ve bought it anyway because, of course, the 903 comments on the WND post predominantly ignore the official explanation and call Disney liars, such as top-rated comment by “pablof:”

I’m a software developer and I can tell you that Disney’s answer regarding the word “God” and profanity etc. is pure BS.

Software can easily filter out the profane use of “God ****” and the singular use of the word for “God”.

THEY ARE LIARS.

Christian Disrupts Satanic … Err, Islamic Service at National Cathedral

New Year’s Resolution: Spend 15 minutes a day to get rid of my WND backlog. 192 articles that I’ve flagged to write about that I’ve convinced myself I haven’t had time to do. Staring timer … NOW.

Back in November, I think November 14, 2014, The United States’ National Cathedral (in Washington, D.C.), held an Islamic prayer service. The Friendly Atheist posted about this, as did The Raw Story. At least the aftermath. See, the issue all comes back down to equal-access and respecting other peoples’ beliefs even if you don’t like them. That’s part of the First Amendment.

It would’ve been uninteresting, though WND’s Jerry Newcombe would’ve gotten his Nov. 18 article, “Praising Allah at the National Cathedral,” and Leo Hohmann would’ve gotten his out, too: “Imam Insulted Christians, Jews in National Cathedral.”

But, in an astounding display of Christian Love®, Leo wrote three days earlier (before he could invent something else to be mad about), “Christian Booted from National Cathedral Speaks Out.”

See, what happened is that some woman (Christine Weick, which the WND article says is from Michigan but later says she’s from Kingsport, Tennessee), decided to make a scene. Leo describes her with reverence:

Christine Weick, a 50-year-old Michigan woman with flowing blonde hair who lives out of her car, rose from the packed National Cathedral, the hall of halls in terms of religious prominence in America, and moved toward the front of the church.

She pointed to the cross hanging overhead. […]

“Jesus Christ died on that cross over there. He is the reason we are to worship only Him. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior,” she said. “We have built …allowed you your mosques in this country. Why don’t you worship in your mosques and leave our churches alone? We are a country founded on Christian principles.”

She immediately heard voices in the crowd yelling for security.

“Black coat, white scarf, blonde hair!” yelled one. “We need to get her out of here now!” someone else cried out.

“They were yelling for security, and by that point I was already done saying what I came to say,” Weick told WND. […]

She had instantly become a folk hero of sorts for thousands, if not millions, of Christians who read what happened or watched the video that was posted on the Internet.

The WND article describes a credulous interview with her, where she looked for signs she should interfere (and saw them), she hid in the bathroom for over 90 minutes so she could avoid detection, she waited for the right moment to say her message (she was “literally scared to death”), and that she doesn’t consider herself to be a hero, but she was humbled.

Just 1 comment shy of 1600 comments tend to agree with her.

I, however, see her as a, intolerant, uninformed, Bible-thumper who is a very small person.

God Is Like a Jumping Cactus Spike: Easy to Get In, Nearly Impossibly Difficult to Get Out

I spent Christmas with my brother who was in Scottsdale, AZ two years ago. We went walking and through a process I won’t get into, I was injected with Screaming Barbs of Eternal Torment. AKA, jumping cactus spines. These are ridiculously difficult to get out because the entire shaft is made of miniature arrowhead-like projections such that they are simple to get in, but they will rip things to shreds coming out. I still have the scars.

God is like that when injected into government on things like money, the national motto, or the pledge of allegiance (FYI, we’re one of the only countries that have a pledge of allegiance that students repeat with religious fervor every day for 13 years): Once it’s there, getting it out is nearly impossible and a political non-starter.

This is despite “Poll: 34% of Americans Want God Out of Pledge.” Hmmmm.

Well, top-rated comment by “Pi10107” smells conspiracy: “Look who did the polling. It is a scam by the atheists. Notice how they claimed that the number of those claiming to be Christians was 666. A little too obvious. Atheists will lie, cheat, steal, etc. to get God out of everything. Guess what, atheists. God will still be around no matter what you do.”

I’m actually okay with that. And that’s the whole point of God not being in government: You can still believe in your god as much as you want, just don’t shove it in everyone elses’ face.

Surprisingly, “Doug Indeap” has the second-highest-rated comment:

The government’s addition of the words “under God” to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 and adoption of “In God we trust” as a national motto in 1956, were mistakes, which should be corrected. Under our Constitution, the government has no business proclaiming that “we trust” “In God.” Some of us do, and some of us don’t; each of us enjoys the freedom to make that choice; the government does not and should not purport to speak for us in this regard. Nor does the government have any business calling on its citizens to voice affirmation of a god in any circumstances, let alone in the very pledge the government prescribes for affirming allegiance to the country. The unnecessary insertion of an affirmation of a god in the pledge puts atheists and other nonbelievers in a Catch 22: Either recite the pledge with rank hypocrisy or accept exclusion from one of the basic rituals of citizenship enjoyed by all other citizens. The government has no business forcing citizens to this choice on religious grounds, and it certainly has no business assembling citizens’ children in public schools and prescribing their recitation of the pledge–affirmation of a god and all–as a daily routine.

Couldn’t’ve said it better myself. Though perhaps a bit more concisely.

No Muslims Need Apply?

Larry Klayman, perhaps better known as the guy who led thousands tens of people in Washington, D.C. in an attempt to get President Obama to resign, really doesn’t like Muslims. Which is like saying “water is wet” when talking about most columnists on World Net Daily.

In this case, after his failure, perhaps Klayman thought he’d have better luck spreading his Islamophobia by attaching it with a paperclip to anti-immigation sentiment among the broader conservative movement. For now, Klayman is advocating what America did to the Irish and then the Chinese and many other ethnic groups a century ago— limit immigration: “Time to Limit Muslim Immigration.”

Here’s the opening paragraph:

The time for political correctness is over. It is time to call it like it is. The nation hangs in the balance, and making excuses for the destructive conduct of President Barack Hussein Obama and his American Muslim constituency no longer cuts it. His acts are not the result of someone who is ill-prepared and disconnected from the office of the president. He and his racist, anti-white, socialist, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian minions – from Attorney General Eric Holder, to Secretary of State John Kerry, to closet Muslim Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Brennan – know exactly what they are doing. To complement the race war Obama and Holder have stoked at home, Obama and Brennan are bent on furthering an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East and around the globe. These are evil men, bent on taking the United States and its allies down. For Obama’s part, he not only identifies with his Muslim roots, he acts on them. Brennan is simply the white stooge who, among others, helps Obama carry out the plan.

That’s an impressive amount of hate in a single paragraph. It seems like anyone he hates is a Muslim. Doesn’t matter if they’re not, to Larry Klayman, they’re just hiding it.

It seems like Klayman’s argument is one of self-defense: “While Muslims have thus far not succeeded in wiping us off the face of the earth, much less exterminating Israel – the land of Jesus and Moses – the bottom line is that most of them hate our guts.”

And, there’s almost no such thing as a good Muslim: “If American Muslims had tried to play a constructive role with their terrorist brothers, that would be one thing. But by and large they sit back and silently cheer events like September 11, or the beheading of American journalists.”

So, he wants to stop all immigration for anyone who is Muslim, “unless there are proven and legitimate family or humanitarian reasons for entry.”

He claims he’s not being racist, he’s just trying to protect America! Never mind that less than 2% of Americans are Muslim. Or that the largest, most comprehensive survey of Muslims show that they are just as likely to reject radical and militant Islam as the average American.

But don’t let facts get in the way of bigotry.

Meanwhile, WND’s Lord Monckton decides to tackle the Issues of Our Day in a different way: “The Quran Is Illegal.”

Since I’m a big advocate of the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech, even if it’s speech I don’t like, I was interested to see what Monckton’s reasoned justification would be. His first sentence made me dubious I would find it: “For obvious reasons, incitement to murder is a serious crime.” When I read that, I figured he was going to say that because there are verses in the Quran that advocate violence, it should be illegal.

Along the way looking for this passage, I came across this sentence, which directly contradicts Larry Klayman: “The great majority of Muslims, wherever they are in the world, do their best to live in peace with their neighbors.”

He points these out:

For instance: “Fight and kill those who join other gods with Allah wherever you find them; besiege them, seize them, lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush” (Sura 9, Verse 5).

Or: “Make war upon such of those to whom the scriptures have been given who believe not in Allah, or in the last day, and who forbid not what Allah and his apostle have forbidden, until they pay tribute” (9.29).

Or: “When you encounter the infidels, strike off their heads, until you have made a great slaughter among them” (47.4).

And here’s his justification, just as I predicted:

Given the venom on every page of this extended incitement to murder anyone who does not follow Islam, it is surprising that there is not more Islamic terror than there is.

Craven public authorities have failed to act against the circulation of the Quran in its present form because they fear a violent backlash.

How, then, is this manifestly illegal text to be dealt with? It is not our custom to ban books, for freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.

However, it is our custom to prosecute for incitement to murder. And the fact that incitement is on every page of what is said to be a holy book does not diminish, still less extinguish, the offense.

So, the Quran is a person and he or she is inciting murder. Well, I guess if corporations are people, too …

Here’s the problem: Monckton is correct. Not that it should be illegal, but that “freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.” If it weren’t, then most of the writers from World Net Daily would be in prison for calling for, among other things, overthrows of the US government and various incitements of violence against non-straight people and against anyone who isn’t Christian or Jewish. Some of them on WND itself, but for the most part, they tend to confine their outright calls for such things to other media outlets.

If that explanation doesn’t work, I think that “Rm Mize”‘s top-rated comment is also good justification:

How’s this for incitement to murder?

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

Oh, but that’s not the Qu’ran. That’s Deuteronomy 13:6-11 (NIV)

Do you plan on making the Bible illegal as well? Or just the Torah? You do realize that Islam is related to Christianity in the same way Christianity is related to Judaism, right? I’m not advocating it as a belief system, I’m just saying that your knee-jerk reactions are hypocritical. You come off looking more like Pharisees than followers of Christ–who was actually pretty accepting of diversity if his closest friends are anything to go by.