ovo

From the 1906 book The Outbursts of Everett True by A. D. Condo and J. W. Raper. With thanks to Barnacle Press.

Some women who protested at the Islamic Center of Washington, wanting to be able to worship in the main prayer hall with their male counterparts, were asked to leave by the police. But they say their struggle will continue. Carpets with intricate designs cover the floors of the main prayer hall and turquoise tiles line the walls. But the source of contention is a small room created with 7-foot-high wooden walls. Jannah B’int Hannah describes how she feels in there where she cannot see the imam, or leader of the mosque, speak. “Boxed in, stifling, suffocating and totally a second class citizen,” Hannah said. Over the weekend, Hannah and approximately 20 other women prayed in the main hall, but D.C. police were called. They asked them to leave or be arrested.

Article continues.  A few words for the person who made the call to the police.  When the police come next time to tell you how to conduct your religion, remember what you did.  Remember that you asked for the State to determine and enforce how you worship.  Remember that you requested armed police officers to enter your mosque and differentiate between the right and the wrong way to be a Muslim.  Remember well what you did.  Because if you complain when it happens next time, you’ll have no one to blame but yourself.

Details are scant, but this appears to be a case of the establishment of religion – expressly forbidden in the United States Constitution.  The police should have taken the call and told whoever made it they could not respond without a criminal charge.  Threats of violence?  Sure.  Trespassing?  A little sticky, but maybe.  ‘Praying in the wrong room?’  Sorry, not our problem.  In this case, the State went too far in establishing how to be a Muslim.

The State doesn’t always go too far.  Sometimes it doesn’t go far enough.

Dustin Gardiner, Dad accused in ‘honor killing’ will not face death penalty:

A Glendale man accused of slaying his daughter in an “honor killing” will not face the death penalty. After sparring with the suspect’s defense attorney over its death penalty review process, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has said it will not seek death for Faleh Almaleki, 49. The Iraqi immigrant is accused of slaying his daughter, 20-year-old Noor Almaleki, for being “too Westernized.” Police say he used his Jeep Cherokee to run down his daughter and another woman in a Peoria parking lot Oct. 20. Noor Almaleki later died of her injuries. Almaleki is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault and two counts of leaving the scene of a serious accident. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The decision not to seek the death penalty comes after Almaleki’s attorney, Billy Little, a public defender, asked a judge to take special precautions to ensure the County Attorney’s Office wouldn’t wrongly seek the death penalty because Almaleki is a Muslim.  Little requested that the office make public the process it uses to determine whether to seek capital punishment.  “An open process provides some level of assurance that there is no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs,” Little wrote, referring to County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ Christian faith. [...] Prosecutors said Almaleki has admitted killing his daughter because she disgraced the family by not following traditional Iraqi or Muslim values.

I oppose the death penalty in all cases.  That having been said, this has the appearance that a murderer received a reduced sentence due to being a Muslim. The County Attorney’s Office issued a statement about the case: “The defendant is charged with first degree murder and, if convicted, will spend the rest of his life in prison. As is in all first degree murder cases, the decision on whether to seek the death penalty is made on a case by case basis. Cultural considerations played no part in the decision not to seek the death penalty.” I certainly hope so.

Capital News Service, Legislator Says Disabled kids are God’s Punishment:

[Virginia] State Delegate Bob Marshall of Manassas says disabled children are God’s punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy. He made that statement Thursday at a press conference to oppose state funding for Planned Parenthood. “The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” said Marshall, a Republican. “In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”

Delegate Bob Marshall, Statement on Recent News story by Capital News Service:

A story by Capital News Service regarding my remarks at a recent press conference opposing taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood conveyed the impression that I believe disabled children are a punishment for prior abortions. No one who knows me or my record would imagine that I believe or intended to communicate such an offensive notion. I have devoted a generation of work to defending disabled and unwanted children, and have always maintained that they are special blessings to their parents. Nevertheless, I regret any misimpression my poorly chosen words may have created as to my deep commitment to fighting for these vulnerable children and their families. Sincerely, Delegate Bob Marshall

No need to apologize, State Delegate Marshall!  Because you were right the first time.  Christianity does consider the disabled to be cursed by God. Let’s consult the primary evidence…

Who makes people blind? “Who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?” – Exodus 4:11.
Does God make people blind as a punishment? “The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart.” – Deuteronomy 28:28
What about people with other disabilities; does God hate them too? “Whosoever … hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. [...] Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries.” – Leviticus 21:17-23
And those who God favors, if they kill disabled people are they rewarded? “And David said on that day, Whosoever [...] smiteth [...] the blind that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.” – 2 Samuel 5:8
Did Jesus know about these laws and want us to keep them? [Jesus said] “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 5:18-19.

See, State Delegate Marshall?  You stood up for your faith in the public square.  Don’t let your critics force you to back down.  In fact, I’d like to encourage you to go that one step further and detail what you mean when you say “In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord.”

Should we sacrifice first-born babies likewise as we sacrifice ox, sheep and liquor? “Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.” – Exodus 22:29.
That’s pretty harsh. Sure about that God? We’re supposed to kill children for you? “Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah…. And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands…. And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child…. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back. And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth…. And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed.” – Judges 11:29-40.
Just asking one more time, God, it’s right in your eyes to offer human sacrifices? “Josiah … did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord … And he burnt the bones of the priests upon their altars.” – 2 Chronicles 34:1-5.
Yikes. How do you think I’m supposed to feel after killing a child? “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” – Psalm 137:9.

The problem isn’t that State Delegate Marshall misrepresented Christianity.  It’s that he represented it accurately to a Christian nation that makes a point of being ignorant of its own religion. Let’s see what else this moral giant has said.

Wikipedia, Robert G. Marshall:

Marshall sponsored the Marshall-Newman Amendment to the state constitution that prohibited same-sex marriage as well as civil unions, domestic partnerships, and “other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.” It also prohibits the recognition of other states’ such legal arrangements. [...] When asked about abortion in the case of incest, Marshall replied that sometimes incest is voluntary. In response to abortions in the case of rape, Marshall said, “Your origins should not be held against you [referring to the victim's unborn child]. The woman becomes a sin-bearer of the crime, because the right of a child predominates over the embarrassment of the woman.”

God bless State Delegate Marshall. He’ll get nothing but curses from me.  Spitting hatred and contempt.

Subtitled.

Wikipedia:

Ghada Jamshir is a Bahraini women’s rights activist and an ardent campaigner for the reform of Sharia courts in Bahrain and the Arab Gulf states. Jamshir heads the Women’s Petition Committee lobbying for a law that would shift jurisdiction over family and women’s affairs from Islamic Sharia court to civil courts. In 2006, Time Magazine identified Jamshir as one of four heroes of freedom in the Arab world, and Forbes magazine selected her as one of the ten most powerful and effective women in the Arab world.

In 2005, the Bahraini government brought three criminal charges against Jamshir for allegedly publicly defaming the Islamic family court judiciary, and faced a jail sentence of up to 15 years. These charges were eventually dropped on 19 June 2005. Since 2006, Ghada Jamsheer has been under permanent surveillance, there is a 24-hour presence of plainclothes Public Security officials of the Ministry of the Interior outside her home. After her criticism of government policies, Bahrain authorities ordered the local media and press to prevent the publication of any news relating to Jamshir. The order came from the Royal Court, through its minister Shaikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa. Jamshir also claims that the Minister of the Royal Court gave her a direct threat demanding that she end her public work, after which the regime attempted to install a spy camera in her house, bugged her telephone, and sent individuals to bribe and blackmail her.

I admire her courage.

Trevor Blake: Chatroulette Puppet. Online video performance. 18-19 February 2010.  Excerpt.  Silent, color, 1 minute 9 seconds.

The content of these links may not be appropriate for all readers and all environments. – Trevor Blake

Furry Girl, Introduction, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Non:

After working on the outskirts of the porno industry since 2002, I have steadily been moving from wanting to modernize and re-define the concept of feminism to wanting to stop beating that dead horse entirely. Many of my friends and favorite people consider themselves feminists. A lot of my enemies consider themselves feminists, too, and they exist in larger numbers, with better funding, and with better brand recognition as the face of feminism. [...] I spent way too much of my own time trying to shoehorn myself into feminism, and I look back on that as an embarrassing waste of my energy.

Feminism as a word/identity is used to describe so much of everything that it has ceased to mean anything at all. Is fucking people for money feminist? Is climbing the corporate ladder feminist? Is wearing an abaya feminist? Is shaving your pussy feminist? Is being a stay-at-home mom feminist? Is BSDM feminist? Are sewing and crafting feminist? Is makeup feminist? Is being a woman in the military feminist? Is broccoli soup feminist?!?! You have people lined up, ready to fight to the death over their absolute certainty over whether or not such things are truly feminist. (What the word “feminism” stands in for, of course, is deemed permissible by the “right” kind of people.)

In general, I’m tired of “feminist” being used as a blanket qualifier to mean “awesome”, especially when it comes to the concept of feminist porn. I think “awesome” works just fine as a qualifier for awesome. I seek to advance the idea the first person in any debate to propose that their position is correct because it’s the most “feminist” has hereby lost the argument. I have been guilty of this one plenty of times in the past, but I can learn from my mistakes.

Furry Girl, Biography of a Pornographic Polemic:

Why would you NOT want call yourself a feminist? That means you’re sexist, then, right? Pick a side! We’re at war!
I don’t call myself a suffragette, either, but that doesn’t mean I am against women being allowed to vote. I still consider myself super-duper anti-sexism, because sexism is still a problem in my society. Unfortunately, it’s frequently perpetuated by people who call themselves feminists.

What could you possibly have against feminism?
For starters: “feminism” doesn’t have anything close to a singular meaning, so it’s too hard to have rational debate about it when it means opposite things to different people; the feminist pendulum has run its course and too often turns into pointless misandry; feminism used to be about women’s right to be more than just barefoot and pregnant, and now it fights for the “right” of women to be barefoot and pregnant and be given a ton of government and corporate handouts for churning out babies; feminism is commonly embraced by people who’s underlying beliefs are that women are stupid, feeble creatures who need to be controlled and saved; feminism these days focuses way too much on imaginary first-worlder problems like women choosing to feel badly about themselves because they think they’re not pretty enough, rather than real-world problems in the Global South where women aren’t allowed to own property, vote, or have a safe abortion; some feminists are obsessed with fanning and exploiting insecurities in women in order to indoctrinate them to their style of victim feminism, rather than being positive and helping women see that they’re strong and powerful. Last but not least: it’s REALLY FUCKING DIFFICULT to spend your entire life being viciously picked on by girls and women for various reasons, then swallow the idea that women are your true solidarity sisters and that men are the cruel enemy that oppresses you.

From the 1906 book The Outbursts of Everett True by A. D. Condo and J. W. Raper. With thanks to Barnacle Press.

Robert Tait, Turkish Girl, 16, Buried Alive for Talking to Boys:

Turkish police have recovered the body of a 16-year-old girl they say was buried alive by relatives in an “honour” killing carried out as punishment for talking to boys. The girl, who has been identified only by the initials MM, was found in a sitting position with her hands tied, in a two-metre hole dug under a chicken pen outside her home in Kahta, in the south-eastern province of Adiyaman. [...] A postmortem examination revealed large amounts of soil in her lungs and stomach, indicating that she had been alive and conscious while being buried. Her body showed no signs of bruising.  The discovery will reopen the emotive debate in Turkey about “honour” killings, which are particularly prevalent in the impoverished south-east.  Official figures have indicated that more than 200 such killings take place each year, accounting for around half of all murders in Turkey.

Radio Netherlands Worldwide, Anti-Islam Book Launch Cancelled:

The book launch was scheduled for Thursday at The World Forum, but was cancelled because the director of the venue does not believe he can guarantee the safety of his guests. The book in question is Islamofobie? (Islamophobia?), written by Islam critic and PVV supporter Frans Groenendijk. The PVV, or Freedom Party is an anti-Islamic opposition party led by Geert Wilders. Green Left party member Tofik Dibi, who was to receive the first book at the launch, says he regrets that the conference centre acted out of fear.

Mahmood Delkhasteh, Rapists in Iran’s regime:

Sexual assault against men and women is being systematically used in Iran in an attempt to stifle opposition.

Justin Penrose, Rapist Jamaile Morally in Boiling Oil Jail Attack:

A jailed killer poured boiling oil over another inmate because he refused to convert to Islam. Jamaile Morally, 26 – sentenced to life as part of a gang that raped, tortured and murdered a teenage girl and left another for dead – led two other inmates in carrying out the attack.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Burqa-Clad Robbers Hold Up Post Office:

Two burqa-wearing robbers have held up a French post office using a handgun concealed beneath an Islamic-style full veil, court officials said.

All articles continue at links.  Part of a series that never ends… [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and etc.  What sort of emotive debate can occur about honor killings?  I fail to see it as an issue with two valid perspectives which can come into harmony through compromise.  I am similarly too morally stunted to support the trial of Geert Wilders for – killing children?  Islamic theocracy-backed rape tortures? Prostelytising with boiling oil?  Robbing a bank?  No, Geert Wilders is on trial for making a film.  Maybe Wilders is lucky – some filmmakers who were critics of Islam in the Netherlands didn’t get to go to trial.  Violence and threats of violence to filmmakers and book authors, multicultural understanding for pedophiles and murderers.  That’s what Islam brings to the table in the 21st Century.  What do you bring?

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive , and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

- The Open Society and Its Enemies

Most people associate Valentine’s Day with romance, but for Salman Rushdie, I expect it has vastly different associations. On February 14, 1989, Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa, ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie for writing his book The Satanic Verses – and this death sentence has been perpetually reaffirmed by Iranian leaders, though no assassin has yet carried it out.  It was the first salvo in what has become an all-out Islamic war against the freedom of speech.

Rushdie did not invent the “Satanic verses.” The term actually refers to an incident, recorded in Islamic tradition and referred to in Sura 53, in which Satan, not Allah, spoke through Muhammad’s mouth. The verses that the devil gave to the Prophet of Islam have been known thereafter as “the Satanic verses.”

Article continues.  See also Sura 53, Wikipedia.