This list of people banned from the UK for their extremist views is up on Drudge. I guess if you’ve got your own country and you want to keep Michael Savage and Fred Phelps out, that’s your prerogative. It just seems like more trouble than its worth in their cases.
What’s interesting are the people about whom this list reveals precious little information. Putting out a list of people banned from your country seems like a worthwhile occasion for specifying what, exactly, is so unacceptable about their behavior. While it’s fairly detailed about the reasons for banning people with Anglo or European style names, the reasons for banning people with more interesting names is more opaque.
AMIR SIDDIQUE
Preacher. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fomenting terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs.
WADGY ABD EL HAMIED MOHAMED GHONEIM
A prolific speaker and writer. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glory terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and to provoke others to commit terrorist acts.
ABDULLAH QADRI AL AHDAL
Preacher. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence.
YUNIS AL ASTAL
Preacher and Hamas MP. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and to provoke others to terrorist acts.
SAFWAT HIJAZI
Television preacher. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by glorifying terrorist violence.
Preachers, you say. What church has such “particular beliefs”? Are they Methodists?
1Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
5Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
7Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
9Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
10Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
11Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
12Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.
13Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
14Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
15O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
16For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Hubbard posted this at 6:48 AM EST on Wednesday, February 25th, 2009 as Faith, Uncategorized
How, exactly, can the living forgive great mass murderers? Those who live weren’t wronged so grieviously as the murderers’ victims. These thoughts came as I read this article (H/T):
LaPel—a serious man who divides his time between his native Cambodia and a church in Los Angeles that is part of the Purpose Driven network of churches—stood in the middle of the Sangker River and baptized Hang Pin in the muddy runoff from upstream clothing factories.
Hang Pin embraced his new life. “He was the most astute Bible student I have ever had,” LaPel remembers. Soon Hang Pin was a lay pastor.
Four years passed. In the middle of the night, back in Los Angeles, LaPel got a phone call from a man he had never heard of. The man’s message was simple: “Hang Pin is Comrade Duch.”
LaPel fell to his knees in shock.
“I hit myself in the head,” he says.
He had recalled instantly that Duch—the nickname of Kaing Guek Eav—was the warden of the Khmer Rouge’s notorious Tuol Sleng prison. The meek, depressed man who had become a diligent minister was one of the bloodiest mass murderers the world has known.
A few excerpts from the article about Comrade Duch’s conversion, with my thoughts:
“Once the Khmer Rouge come to Christ, they are committed,” LaPel says. “They were fanatical Communists, and now they are fanatical Christians.”
Anyone familiar with Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer should not be surprised. Fanatics need a cause, and when one cause burns itself out, they substitute another. We can be grateful that he became fanatically meek and humble, but he could easily have become a different (and more dangerous) kind of fanatic.
Did his daughter ever see a sign of the brutal man he’d been? “He was strict,” she says. “But not really a tough guy. He made us do chores, but he never touched his children. He was mostly strict towards himself.”
A Hoffer quotation comes to mind: The remarkable thing is that we really love our neighbor as ourselves: we do unto others as we do unto ourselves. We hate others when we hate ourselves. We are tolerant toward others when we tolerate ourselves. We forgive others when we forgive ourselves. We are prone to sacrifice others when we are ready to sacrifice ourselves.
“What created the Khmer Rouge is a mystery,” his sister says. “It was like everybody faced the same circumstances. You were either beaten or you were a slave or you were killed. Everyone just tried to survive.”
Now things are different for her brother, she says. “He has a commitment. He always tells me, ‘Accept the Lord. Only Christ has the answer.’ His faith is very strong.”
But Youk Chhang, the investigator who has helped the prosecution, has a different point of view. Whether Duch’s conversion is sincere or not, Youk says, justice demands that he be judged in court.
I must agree with Youk. We don’t know the state of Duch’s soul. But we do know what he has done. Perhaps one day, God will wipe the slate clean. But here on earth, the laws of men must be upheld, and Duch’s evil deeds must be punished.
Conor has thrown out a question: will same-sex marriage undermine religious liberty? My answer: Very possibly.
Catholic charities in Massachusetts once handled many adoptions, and they refused to place children in the homes of same-sex couples, which got them sued. When they lost the lawsuit and the court said they could not “discriminate” against same-sex couples, the Catholic charities shut down rather than be forced to go against their faith.
Hypothetical question: could a same-sex couple get married in a Catholic church? The church would argue that since they don’t recognize same-sex unions, they could not. Quite a few gay Catholics would love to pick a fight over this. As surely as George W. Bush will mangle the English language, someone is going to file a lawsuit about this.
Elizabeth Scalia (aka the Anchoress) foresaw this question and proposed a thoughtful and humane way to deal with it:
[T]he churches should reconsider their roles in authenticating marriage. Governments issue birth certificates; churches issue baptismal certificates. Governments issue death certificates; churches pray the funerals. Governments issue divorces; Churches annul. Both work within their separate and necessary spheres, serving the corporeal and the spiritual. It is only in the issue of marriage that church and state have commingled authority. That should perhaps change, and soon. Let the government certify and the churches sanctify according to their rites and sacraments.
Given that expensive litigation is as American as arrested development, we probably won’t do it her way. Let the ugly begin.
Hubbard posted this at 10:03 AM EST on Wednesday, December 17th, 2008 as Faith, Here and Queer
It’s long been noted that those who have no qualms at offending Christians frequently have qualms when faced with the prospect of offending Muslims. I think, excluding fear of retaliatory violence, this is merely a subset of the patronizing views of the American left toward the spirituality of non-white peoples.
Does anyone seriously think that Playboy would apologize if a similar image had caused offense in America? I normally hate arguing with hypotheticals, but if Mary appeared on the American edition and some American Christians got cranky, we’d almost certainly get lengthy discussions about the First Amendment, and how important the right to offend is, and how complaining Christians are a threat to free speech. Moreover, we’d get a Saturday Night Live skit about evangelicals being a bunch of prudes. This ritual has been repeated so many times, it’s impossible to not see it happening.
But a darker skinned people has their religion offended, it’s time to apologize!
Apollo posted this at 9:29 PM EST on Saturday, December 13th, 2008 as Faith, Race
Hurricanes and Hitler are often cited as the most difficult challenges to the belief that God is good. A more compelling answer is He has deprived us of the chance to have a young Clint Eastwood play President Andrew Jackson.
Old Hickory
Young Easty
Why, God? Why???
Tom posted this at 2:00 PM EST on Thursday, November 20th, 2008 as Faith, Film Rants
Much of the time, ‘Christianism’ is just a label applied to any conservative who expresses his religious views in a way that displeases Andrew Sullivan. Then there’s stuff like this.
Christopher Hitchens here writes about how terrible it is that McCain and Palin are railing against some of the billions of dollars the federal government spends on research. In the midst of which, we get this:
We never get a chance to ask her in detail about these things, but she is known to favor the teaching of creationism in schools (smuggling this crazy idea through customs in the innocent disguise of “teaching the argument,” as if there was an argument), and so it is at least probable that she believes all creatures from humans to fruit flies were created just as they are now.
A. All the recent stories have been that Palin is the only one of the four major candidates frequently having discussions with the media. It seems that lots of people get to ask her questions these days.
B. It doesn’t require a federal research grant to search the interwebs and find that Palin actually doesn’t promote the teaching of creationism. Hitchens has no excuse for peddling lies, though the irony of doing it in this particular column made it worth my time to read this. Flippin’ Wikipedia even got this one right.
C. I don’t think that Sarah Palin has said whether she’s a creationist or not, so the last line of speculation is largely baseless. I actually like that she doesn’t talk about that, since it’s a complete non-issue what our politicians think about the vast majority of scientific issues.
For someone so concerned about science and research, this was a remarkably fact-free tirade.
Hitchens then proceeds to a lengthy paragraph of unhinged and unsupported speculation about Palin as a religious fanatic. There’s not too much actually connecting Palin personally to religious fanaticism (and, by any historical or global standard, Pentecostals are some pretty mild religious fanatics), though I’m not sure it’s a terribly American past time to begrudge politicians their peculiar theological beliefs. It’s interesting for Hitchens, who hates all religion, and who understands the finer points of Christian theology about as well as a hammer understands a wine glass, to involve himself in such a discussion.
Apollo posted this at 5:17 PM EDT on Monday, October 27th, 2008 as Faith, Hitch-slapped!
I’m tired of the Bristol Palin pregnancy story. But I did see two commentaries about it that deserve more attention. First up (H/T) is a piece that discusses the evangelicals reaction, which is much different than how lefties think evangelicals react:
For what the Left sees as hypocrisy, most folks who are not Obama voters just see as falling short. As, of course, we, as humans, all do.
Bristol Palin’s journey is a human story. She tried to be good. She fell short. Instead of aborting the baby she will carry it to term and marry the father. To socially conservative America, there is nothing tragic about this.
You see, to many of the voters Barack Obama has not yet seemed to reach and who have thus far been ambivalent about McCain, this is exactly how these things are supposed to go. Their reality has not been shaken, the scales have not fallen from their eyes.
Sarah Palin did nothing “wrong.” And Bristol Palin did nothing other than sin, which we all do. She is now managing her sin as prescribed by tradition. To the traditionalist the situation is not ideal, no, but it is not a disaster.
This is a human story. The more the left attacks, attempts to expose “hypocrisy”, the more the personal will very much become the political. Unfortunately it will become political in a way that leads all those hard working Bubbas, all those church-going single mommas, right out to the polls to vote for that war hero and and those women they now identify with, Sarah and Bristol Palin.
What’s more concerning is the second take. David Frum essentially asks, why didn’t the McCain campaign handle this better?
Many conservatives, including my friends at the Corner, are outraged that the pregnancy of Bristol Palin has drawn swifter and more ferocious media attention than the adultery and (probable) out-of-wedlock fatherhood of John Edwards. They blame media bias, and probably they are right. Sexual adventuring or embarrassment involving Republican politicians is usually covered much more eagerly than that involving Democrats.
Question though: Is media bias a new or surprising fact about American politics? Wasn’t the reaction to the Palin pregnancy foreseeable? If so, why wasn’t it foreseen?
About a week ago, a student at Central Florida University attended Catholic mass was given Eucharist — i.e., a communion wafer — and did not eat it immediately as one is supposed to do and, indeed, took it home with him over the objections of the church. In addition to being physically grabbed by some of the other parishioners and igniting a media and campus firestorm, he has apparently received death threats.
Though other Christain denominations also ‘take communion,’ few believe it to be as literally true as Catholics do; indeed, they believe the wafer is literally changed into the body of Christ through during the mass and that consuming it is a vital and necessary act of communion with God. Though it still looks and tastes like a bread wafer it is, for all intents and purposes to them, Jesus’ body and holy beyond measure.
It’s unclear why the kid did it. In this article, he alternately claims to have been trying to show it to a friend to explain Catholicism to him — which is something like explaining Islam to someone by ripping the best pages out of a Koran and showing them to him…only worse — and then then seems to have been protesting the pubic university’s funding of religious institutions.
Predictably, the professional hysterics at the Catholic League launched a campaign of manufactured outrage as soon as they got wind of it. Equally predictably, biologist and atheist apologist Professor PZ Myers — whom this blog has linked to approvingly before — was outraged by the outrage, especially (and quite rightfully) by the death threats. Less predictably, Myers went on to write this, which I can only imagine would make Richard Dawkins blush for shame:
I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There’s no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I’m sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I’ll send you my home address.
Of course, I’m an old fashioned type who thinks that you should probably share the beliefs of the church you join, so perhaps I’m not seeing this through the correct lens.
Apollo posted this at 10:14 PM EDT on Thursday, May 15th, 2008 as Audacity of Hype, Faith
The exchange that really gets me comes when someone asks him about the “America’s chickens have come home to roost” routine.
WRIGHT: Have you heard the whole sermon? Have you heard the whole sermon?
MODERATOR: I heard most of it.
WRIGHT: No, no, the whole sermon, yes or no? No, you haven’t heard the whole sermon? That nullifies that question.
Well, let me try to respond in a non-bombastic way. If you heard the whole sermon, first of all, you heard that I was quoting the ambassador from Iraq. That’s number one.
But, number two, to quote the Bible, “Be not deceived. God is not mocked. For whatsoever you sow, that you also shall reap.” Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic, divisive principles.
It’s hard to think of a more cut and dry perversion of the Golden Rule than this. To take Christ’s command and twist it into a justification for a terrorist attack (or any attack) shows so little understanding of Christian principles, and so little respect for the meaning of words, that I can’t think of an appropriate way to describe it. These aren’t the words of a scholar, they’re the words of a sycophant willing to twist the words of Christ to his own purpose. This is “gays caused 9/11″ stuff.
And his excerpt from Galatians (”Be not decieved…” Gal 6:7) is nothing more than a thoughtless twisting of Biblical words to suit his own needs. For a man who goes ape poo if people only listen to “snippets” of his sermons rather than the whole thing, it’s notable that he just cuts and pastes small Biblical sayings, completely out of context, to support his point.
Look, I can do it too, from the very same chapter no less: Galatians 6:15-16- “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.”
See, America and Europe follow that rule while the Muslims don’t, thus we’re entitled to peace and mercy and they’re entitled to the root end of a mushroom cloud. Mohammed’s circumcised chickenssssss ………. have come home to roost! Maybe now our secular messiah will call me a Biblical scholar too.
Jeremiah Wright is disgusting not simply because he’s a racist and hates America, but because he is a perverter of Christianity. I’m reminded here of nothing so much as mid-19th century southerners using scripture to say that there’s a divine imperative to enslave blacks. The Bible is a dangerous weapon; a heart bereft of love and charity can do terrible things with its words.
Apollo posted this at 8:01 PM EDT on Monday, April 28th, 2008 as Audacity of Hype, Faith
Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one’s deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24). Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that “in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation”, and a democracy without values can lose its very soul (cf. Centesimus Annus, 46). Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent “indispensable supports” of political prosperity.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
I think Benedict not only managed to slip in an oblique critique of patriotism (which one might expect from a German Pope) but also furthered the theme of his papacy: demonstrating that faith and reason are complements. I concur with the Anchoress:
John Paul made you feel; Benedict makes you think. If you’re looking for catharsis and “feelings” you wont’ get them. Just the truth delivered at 160 wpm.
