Homes

This is just the beginning of the hilarity. Penises are on loan and God made women so His penis would have a home?!?! 

The first thing to know about your penis is, that despite the way it may seem, it is not your penis. Ultimately, God created you and it is his penis. You are simply borrowing it for a while.

The article goes on to address masturbation and homosexuality further burdening the already stressed real estate analogy.

The Elephant in the Room

An old months-old post.... I've since written something on values voting that essentially says the same thing.


I used this phrase before, but didn't realize it's double meaning until someone pointed it out. :) So, yes, pun intended (this time).

People who are members of the Lord's body the church of Christ) are going to know more about what I'm talking about, but many things will be relevant to all who think about religion.

It's election time again and Christians are talking (in and out of the church building) about abortion and gay marriage and being a Christian in and out of the voting booth. It doesn't help that we've just passed an amendment to the state constitution here to ban gay marriage, so there's even more... ideas being exchanged, shall we say. There is a long held belief that being a Christian in the voting booth means voting Republican, with the implication that voting Democrat is sinful or nearly so (or agreeing with one or several ideas associated with Democrats means you support abortion and homosexuality and hence think it is not sin). These specifics are never really stated, but hinted at with the vote your values language and "be a Christian in and out of the voting booth" types of things, hence the elephant in the room.

I personally think this logic goes farther than scripture.


Why only these two issues to determine our morals?

Why choose two sins to determine morality by law that most Christians don't struggle with as opposed to more common ones?

Why must we have these things banned in law to be acceptable to God? And why not the other sins- are we ranking them? Have these two, abortion and homosexuality, been politicized? (Think how politically viable banning alcohol and divorce (except in the case of infidelity) and remarriage (except in the case of death and infidelity- for the one party) would be...)

A president governs the country, why not choose him based on qualifications for the job rather than his stance on banning two sins in particular above all others? We aren't electing an elder to the state church, after all.

Should we be more concerned with enacting laws to ban sin or teaching individuals? I ask this because of Jesus' approach, not necessarily as an actual choice. He commanded the gospel to be taught, not Rome to be toppled and replaced by the church or a democracy that enacted laws that banned sin.


A problem I see is that sometimes we speak in terms of putting God first as a nation, but we will be judged individually. There is no national salvation.

Another problem comes from the best of intentions. We are to stand up for Christ and rightly divide the word and not compromise on truth because it comes from a perfect authority. It seems that sometimes this same uncompromising approach seeps into the political beliefs (which involve fallible men and definitely imperfect doctrine) as well- for example, voting Republican= godly; voting Democrat= sin.  I agree that there aren't many paths to heaven; there is one. I don't think we can say the same about politics. There are many different issues and each one you can approach in a godly or ungodly way. Christians are going to disagree on which issues are important for governing and how much government should be in which things.

I imagine there are a ton of smart people who will have an answer for every one of my points, but what I'm saying is let's make sure the line in the sand we draw is scriptural and not political. With all due respect to many good people, I think it goes beyond scripture to say one party is a Godly choice or that you are not putting God first if you choose this or that party or that you will go to hell if you vote for this or that candidate.

Reading Lolita in Tehran

So I'm reading Reading Lolita in Tehran. It reminds me of separation of church and state rants I've done on the blog in some ways.

I had these thoughts while reading the first part of the book. She goes into some description of Iran and compares it with her life abroad. The recent republican debates, Eid stamp hysteria emails, sharia law hysteria, Muslim hearings in Congress, etc have also been in the background of my thoughts on church and state and extremes lately.

Voting according to religion is good, but legislating it is often not- be careful what you wish for- we may end up living up in a Christian version of Iran. Imagine if baptism was the law or baptized individuals received rights others didn't get. The state loses and religion loses. We need to vote our conscience; that is our right and duty. When we start to impose our (or certain) religious rules on others, it becomes a problem. Not only have we taken away their right to work things out for themselves, but it may very well backfire on us. We start with the good intention of shielding children and ourselves from immorality and then the balance of power shifts and suddenly others are telling us how to practice our religion and what's moral and who we can and cannot hire as a preacher (for example).

There is a bit of discussion on the veil in Iran in the book. Before the revolution when you could wear colors and read fiction and laugh in public, the veil was a symbol of a choice. When it became law, the power of the symbol was lost, though the intent of the law was no doubt a moral one. The veil changed from being a personal, religious symbol to one of oppression in a lot of ways.

Sorry- just getting a lot of hits on my Muslim stamp post and listening to the republican candidates and debate highlights (sharia law in the US?!) ...

And another thing occurred to me- about page 209. A thought about the Bush administration. Not to make a direct comparison between Bush and Iran or anything. (Seriously!) She spoke of a mood of resignation and tiredness with all of the bombings and interruptions of life (Iran-Iraq war) when they were forced to hear military marches, news of a "victory", or mourn a "martyr." And then she talks about the complete opposite attitudes of people in the street with anti-war sentiments and the government droning on- "the regime's ideal continued the play itself out undeterred." This sentence reminded me so much of the voices (many experts and former US officials) of doubt about Iraq's possession of WMD, yellowcake and Africa, link to 9/11, etc and the Bush administration's smug superiority when Bush, Cheney or the others would continue to repeat things (Bush doctrine, mushroom cloud, hit them there rather than here, Iraq has WMD, Iraq is linked to 9/11) with the same smug certainty when they were first only suspected as false (by liberals generally-and me, though I hadn't decided what I was at that point but plenty of people told me what I was...) as when they were increasingly known to all as false and maybe lies. I'm not calling Bush a dictator or anything, but there was that same distance so vast it was unbelievable and almost funny (tragic) between the public and the government in both cases. That sentence really struck me as extraordinarily applicable- especially Cheney's certainty and the way he quoted something picked up by the Times, leaked by the administration itself. Bush was always concerned about his legacy and history;  he can rest assured that he'll go down in it all right. Legendary.

Oddly enough , a recent event ties in somewhat. It's not the government, but still odd:

Did a Marriot Vacation Club survey and was asked a series of questions about vacations. Also included was a question about believing in 7 day creation and prayer in schools (?). We aren't members, but took a deal that offered a low rate in return to listening to the presentation and offer to do this timeshare thing, etc. I have no problem with discussing these things, but what is the motivation, here? It's none of their business. I am immediately suspicious and have less of a desire to join, not that it was high to begin with! This kind of gets at what I was saying- what if questions like these become routine for everything- businesses you want to enter and buy from, school admission, traffic stops.

Islam in the church...and consumerism, too, I guess

Islam is sometimes mentioned in worship and Bible classes. I'm probably going to seem overly critical, but I'm just trying to sort out what's right- how should I react, what does the Bible say, should I go along with the majority? It's more of an inward criticism or conflict. Or maybe I am hypersensitive on this or maybe it's just one of those things that for me provokes thought endlessly given the political atmosphere and times. There was a lighthearted joke- not a big deal- but it made me think about the way we talk about other religions, etc. It also made me think of some less lighthearted things about Islam I've heard from people I would otherwise consider strong in the faith, as this situation always does.

I also found the strong agreement when radical Islam and suicide bombing was mentioned interesting. That made me think about buzzwords and hot topics that are often mentioned when politics and religion cross over now and then. When certain things are mentioned like abortion, gay marriage, the way culture is going down the tubes because a certain party in in the White House, and I think we can add radical Islam to the list (which is weird since it has very little to do with Islam and nothing to do with Christians), it can really animate and light a fire under a congregation. I use the conservative example here, because this is what situation I am in, but it is the same for the other side as well, I'm sure- same reaction to different buzzwords.

I mean why look at Islam so closely? Aside from the political focus, because I guess that's the real reason. Why poke fun at their beliefs- or things we think are beliefs but are really myths? I see it done with denominations occasionally, but we normally catch ourselves and say we shouldn't be doing that. Not so with Islam. It can be sort of a of a free for all. Maybe it's because when we're poking fun at denominations, we get uncomfortable when we think of a good friend who is involved with one of these groups; whereas many of us don't have this handy check and balance for Islam (I'm just guessing here).

Instead of the jokes, though, I wonder why we don't approach Islam (not just personally, but teach it), or more specifically, radical Islam (since I think this is the focus of the concern), a little more like Paul or Stephen. They both just kept on preaching the truth (wisely- in their case they had the Spirit to lead them to various cities- in our case, we have the Bible that tells us not to provoke, to be be kind, live as we are called) and Stephen even pleaded for their souls as they stoned him to death. I don't recall them spreading rumors about or laughing at their detractors as part of their teaching. They were in more immediate danger than we are from "radical Islam" and yet they were far more sensible about the whole thing (I guess that makes sense, now, doesn't it?). I don't think that they weren't afraid- not at all- but they certainly handled it well and we can and should learn volumes from that. They may have made certain arrangements in their meetings for safety, but I can't really see the superior attitude in the New Testament that I hear sometimes today.

They seemed to have a good understanding of this verse we seem to often forget:

Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

And also:

Romans 12:18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.

I have been seeing this focus on Islam in/by the church since the Iraq invasion or since 9/11/2001. There have been lessons, even lectureships, and of course many a post on a message board (breeding ground for sensational email forwards). Why? Maybe this is becoming one of those issues like abortion and gay marriage for which you must preach zero tolerance and draconian measures in order to be a true Republican and in some cases a true Christian? Is it a reflection of the Republican Party's obsession (see post on Muslim Hearings)?

I wonder why we have to be so concerned? It's not really such a safety issue. Yes, there are those who don't like our policies and want to kill for that. True. But nothing like Rome and Christianity back in the day- not by any means.

I do understand that we are to do this:

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

On the other hand, there are other issues (I believe) that we should be thinking more closely about than Islam or the smaller minority of radicals. Consumerism. Why do we "need" so much stuff? I'm talking about myself as much as anyone. Having been to the 3rd world, made that vow to do with less, violated said vow so quickly and easily upon return, I  reflect on it some. I think we could do with a lot less, but then in a world of excess, you'd look like you were unnecessarily depriving yourself or worse, your kids. It seems much more in style to decry Islam, abortion, or gay marriage than declaring a war on stuff. I don't think it's a sin to want that Kindle or iPad or splurge on shoes, but at some point you do cross that line. Where is the line? And I think a lot of times that line is closer than we are assuming and saying it is. We are quick to say rich people can and do enter heaven when the verses about the rich young ruler or the camel and the eye of the needle come up. Maybe for good reason. Though it might be hard, it is possible. The problem with it is that I don't hear as much in these types of discussions is how little can we do with? What can I do without? I have too much. I'm talking about myself, here, too, no question. I wonder if we should talk more about giving and buying and having less than clarifying various parables that say it's hard to get to heaven if you're rich?

Wow. This kind of ended up in a different place than I expected. And so ends another post I was going to delete, but will go ahead and post. If I deleted as many posts as I wanted to, I'd only have a handful up here! :)

A Christian view of the Palestinian Israeli conflict

Occupied with Nonviolence: A Palestinian Woman Speaks by Jean Zaru

I'm not quite finished with this one yet, but I feel like I already have a few points to make. 

It is a different perspective than I've been used to reading. Since I'm not a Muslim, I had focused on the Muslim perspective, trying to understand and get some background because experience and my gut were telling me there was more to the story than some would have you believe. You always hear people talking about Muslims oppressing the Christians in the Arab world, Arabs only understand violence, Islam causes terrorism, etc. At some point, even if you trust the source, you've got to find out if this is really true somehow. At least that's what I am compelled to do whether its a stereotype, an email, whatever.

When I started reading, I immediately felt a connection to the author. Her views were very, very familiar. They are very much my own. Not many of the facts are new; I've read quite a bit on this subject. The firm belief in the right of Palestinians to go back home if they want, to be compensated, to form a nation and actually share the land and resources with Israel minus the disclaimer that Israel has the right to exist and defend itself are in fact my own as well. I mean, why should we protect Israel's "right" to defend itself against the consequences of stealing, killing and oppressing hundreds of thousands of people?? 

The adherence to nonviolence is impressive and the understanding of it was insightful. She explains that it's not a passive position in which you let people walk all over you, but where you stand up for truth and justice in a way that you respect the human rights and life of everyone. It reminded me of discussions of meekness and submission in Bible studies. Jesus was meek and submitted to God; we are supposed to be meek and submissive - but this doesn't mean we are weak, scared and letting people trample the truth. On the contrary, true submission is a choice ("power under control" as I once heard it described), not something forced on you as we normally think of psychologically "breaking" a prisoner or animal.

She relates her experiences as a Palestinian Christian under Israeli occupation, which could be pretty eye-opening for some people unfamiliar with the conflict. She sees Israel as the major problem and hurdle and feels brotherhood with Muslims in this struggle in the same way Americans of different faiths come together on matters of national interests and security. She also confronts the issue of the beliefs of the American Christian fundamentalist right who ignore Palestinian Christians rights and safety in their blind support for Jews' Biblical right to live there. (Do they just not know about Palestinian Christians or do Christian Zionists knowingly reject fellow Christians' right to worship and live in peace in favor of the Jewish desire for control?)

More info: My previous post on Christian Zionism

I did take issue with at least one thing. She is one who doesn't appear to believe in a literal reading of the Old Testament. She believes all the mass killings the Israelites were commanded to do against entire nations is against God's character. I don't see how one can be a Christian and have this view. Apart from the Bible, how is one to know God? She seems to be indirectly claiming to know God apart from the Bible and that is a dangerous claim. One we can absolutely reject as false. The inspired writers of the New Testament explain this to those willing to hear. Hebrews, obviously, is a good choice- the Jews are having the old law explained- how the blood of bulls and goats isn't sufficient, elements of the old were types and shadows of the new, if the old had been perfect there wouldn't be a need for the new, and how the death of the testator put the new in force. Hebrews isn't the only place; the New Testament is filled with explanation of the Old. The Old is nailed to the cross (Col 2:13-15), the Old was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Gal 3:23-35), the Old gives us hope and is for our learning (Rom 15:4). The Old Testament is true and has it's place and the New Testament affirms that. That being said, I do agree with her 100% that one cannot use the Bible to prove Jews today have any more right to live in Palestine than anyone else, especially the residents (Palestinian Israelis) and former residents (refugees). Unlike her, I just don't think you have to reinterpret the Bible to see that; it's right there in the text.

Two links on the Bible and Israel/Palestine with scripture references:

Why Do You Refer To Israel As Palestine?

God and the Nation of Israel

I'm also pretty averse to saying absolutely that the Bible condones war or teaches pacifism or supports banning gay marriage or any other political act or persuasion. I think this is possibly going beyond what is written. The Bible is the guide for our spiritual growth and direction. This is not to say that the spiritual doesn't or shouldn't intersect with politics and such because the teachings of the Bible absolutely should inform our everyday decisions. This may sound contradictory, but it isn't. Maybe the nuance lies in putting each command of the Bible into law to become hollow like in the Pharisees time versus having the freedom to choose to submit to God's will and make these decisions for yourself (as far as the decisions don't hurt others- which is where the real purpose of civil law comes in...). Anyway, I'm with her as far as personally being compelled to help people and to treat others as I'd like to be treated. For example, if I were an occupied and oppressed person, I'd want the world to stand up to the occupying power instead of defending its right to exist on my grandparents property and defending its right to defend itself against my efforts to gain compensation, freedom, dignity and sadly, even basic necessities.


Other Christian Palestinian books or authors:

Mitri Raheb (Palestinian Christian, writes about the Occupation and being Christian)
---I Am A Palestinian Christian
---Bethlehem Besieged

Raja Shehadeh (Palestinian Christian, writes about the Occupation)
---Palestinian Walks
---Strangers in the House
---When the Birds Stopped Singing


Suad Amiry (Palestinian Christian, writes about the Occupation)
Sharon and My Mother-in-Law (under occupation with humor and grace)

Nothing to Lose But Your Life


Maria Khoury- I can't speak for her specific Chrsitian doctrine, but here is more proof that Palestinian Chrsitians are kind of ignored in American Christian support of Israel.


Naim Ateek on suicide bombing


The Kairos Palestine Document


Emma Williams
It's Easier to Reach Heaven Than the End of the Street (Westerner, doctor, mother, eyewitness to the conflict)



Fiction:
Mornings in Jenin by Susan Abulhawa

Science vs. Religion (?)

Just saw a bumper sticker: Take a stand for science. Support evolution.

Why? Is it in trouble?

Hmmm.

This is on a car outside a building full of scientists. They should know what science is.

Yikes. I don’t want to know what kind of research they are putting out.

What I mean is anytime one comes to a conclusion and tries to prove it right (rather than prove it wrong or be open to all the outcomes), that’s bad science. You are supposed to observe and report the results. That’s science. My personal take is that science explains (or can explain) God’s creations.

I do believe God created the world, but even to start there and prove it right scientifically (not consider objections) would be bad science. I admit that. But to say that you’re more open minded or more scientific for taking evolution as fact and molding evidence to fit that is just wrong. The same folks will laugh at religious people for doing (what they perceive as) exactly that. The irony of “scientists” saying evolution is fact and creation is fiction or framing the debate as science vs religion makes me smile. I’m no longer perturbed, I’m amused. You have to go with the evidence and try and prove yourself wrong to really get anywhere, but that goes out the window for evolution.

The answer or right path rarely is found in the extremes. The Bible gives one a heads up on that one, so Christians I suppose have a leg up on that fact… I refuse to believe the ‘either science or religion argument’. It’s too simplistic and pretty unscientific. This is not to say I’m into theistic evolution or anything, but science is about observation, not persuasion. Since science is about observation, perhaps the origin of the universe and man is beyond the scope of science. I suppose that won’t stop people from trying. It hasn’t, that is. Since we can’t observe these things, we aren’t going to get any credible methods or results to explore this. Until time machines are invented I suppose.

Christian/Western Perceptions of Islam- No Change

I recently revisited a Christian website. Not a random one, one that has good scriptural stuff in general. I'm not going to name it; I don't want to bash it or anything. I just think we should think about this. The Media section is just out of control. It is supposed to be a place to discuss Christian topics and perspectives on things in the media, I think. Often, what gets posted is simply a link that portrays our government or someone of another faith mistreating Christians or denying them rights. Not always, but frequently, the target is Islam and Muslims.

When you post a link about honor killing or a Muslim cutting off a Christian's hand, etc with no explanation, what exactly are you hoping to achieve? Are you alerting Christians to a danger you think is real and imminent? Are you trying to make Christians feel better by putting down others? Are you trying to inspire Christians to overcome adversity- real or perceived? I just can't see what is trying to be accomplished by these ostensibly well-meaning individuals. Why people insist on "proving" the majority of Muslims are violent or that those truly following Islam are the terrorists or that Islam is not a religion of peace or Allah is different than God- instead of comparing and contrasting Islam with the Bible is beyond me.

Right off the bat before looking at the link and such in a detailed way, I always think about Matthew 10:28:

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

So, someone hates us or wants to kill Christians? What of it? Should we not just live as we are called- not antagonistic, but not silent, either?

Then there are the facts. Those pesky facts. Some people have little use for them, but I want to know what's going on.

We see a very small percentage of Muslims committing terrorist acts in the news and in movies. This is where most of us form our opinions of Muslims and it is not representative of the majority of Muslims out there. I know many will take issue with that statement, but then that is essentially the reason for the post. :)

Some may call me a Muslim 'apologist' and wonder why I care about Muslims rather than the Christians being tortured for their faith around the world by authoritarian regimes. The answer is simple. We have no wrong idea about these Christians, as we do with Muslims. We know it's going on. It's wrong. It should stop, yes, but Christians understand the greater battle is the heart, the spiritual, so if they are faithful, the battle is won regardless of whether they are free to practice or in prison for it. The Christian perception of Muslims may not matter to some, but I find the subject generally approached in a mainly unChristian manner. It bothers me. It's inconsistent and wrong and puts up walls where there need not be, which should matter if you want as many people to go to heaven as possible. That's my thinking, anyway.

Another note- In reading some of these links written by Muslims, they do have some misconceptions about Christianity, at least Christianity as I know and practice it. Granted, they may be getting their info from Calvinists or Catholics neither of whose doctrines I subscribe to, but I still think it is important for us to change the prevailing attitude, ask questions or at least refrain from the sweeping negative generalizations about them regardless of what's said of us.

Now on to the links. This turned out to be more than I thought it was going to be...


***
Silent No More: Confronting America’s False Images of Islam, by Paul Findley is a good book. The title is pretty self-explanatory...
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/october01/0110106.html

Edward Said wrote Covering Islam. I think I have it, but I either haven't read it or can't remember it. That's why I've been making a few notes when I've read something in the past months. The book I remember reading by him was packed with excellent facts and research, but was a little hard to get through despite my interest.

http://www.amazon.com/Covering-Islam-Media-Experts-Determine/dp/0679758909

***********************************************
Here is a PBS piece looking at some myths we cling to about Islam:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/questions/types/index.html

***********************************************

The general public and many academics have several preconceived notions about Islamic Law. One such notion is that Islamic judges are bound by ancient and outdated rules of fixed punishments for all crimes. This paper explores that idea and looks at other myths in an attempt to present Islamic Law from a non-biased view of Shar'iah Law.

http://muslim-canada.org/Islam_myths.htm

***********************************************
Here are a few things often attributed to or blamed on Islam that are actually due to other influences:

Honor killing:

However, many in the West also misunderstand and conveniently condemn honor killing as a practice of Islam. The mistake with this condemnation is that Islam does not permit or condone honor killing. However, it is precisely this misunderstanding and ignorance that allows many in the West to participate in a climate of hate, mistrust and even the idea of war against all of Islam.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/intentchopra/2010/02/a-practical-approach-to-talkin.html

Guardianship:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sabria-jawhar/saudi-tribal-customs-not_b_269867.html

***********************************************
How did the stereotypes come to be?


This site talks about Arabs in the media, but is pretty extensive, so it goes into Islam as well.
http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/sfischo/Arabs.html

***********************************************
Also a good site about how (which ways) Islam did or didn't influence Arab societies and how that it perceived in the West.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/media.htm

***********************************************

Bird in his book, Crossing Mandelbaum Gate, talks about the political vacuum in Egypt being filled by militants. He also talks about Saudi Arabia and how that society was influenced by Wahabiism. He explains how the US supported the royals and dictators to keep oil revenue (democratic systems would probably nationalize the oil which would be bad for us) as opposed to supporting those who desired some form of democracy. These royals and dictators allied with hard line religious leaders in order to keep control and avoid democracies that would send them packing, with US blessings in many cases.

I read book recently, I believe it was Bird's (not sure, though), that explained Sharia'a law better than any other American. Generally, it is associated with dictatorial regimes slicing off heads and hands of dissidents. In reality, it is quite a bit different. He explains how a man killed another man in a car accident. They guy would have probably gone to jail in our society and both parties would live with guilt, anger and loss. Under Sharia'a law, however, an agreement was made that since the guy killed was supporting his parents and I think a sibling, that the offender was required to provide for this family. In our society, it would be acceptable to hate the guy who killed that son. There, the family of the guy who was killed, for their part, considered him in as a son.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/26/bird.arab.modernity/index.html

***********************************************

Some think Islam is the problem and view states in predominantly Muslim areas as failed states. Mostly, though, they are pointing to leaders that claim to be following Islam, but aren't applying it properly or the people or rulers are calling tribal traditions Islamic.

The air is thick with theories which claim that Islam has been paralyzed by a deadening obscurantism since the twelfth century, and this paralysis will only end when Muslims decide to replace Islam with secular humanism. It is time these theories were deconstructed.

http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid3.html

***********************************************

Here's a site talking about democracy being an Islamic value.

So, all else equal, Muslims today ought to endorse the form of government that is most effective in helping them promote these values. ...

Several considerations suggest that democracy—and especially a constitutional democracy that protects basic individual rights—is that form.

http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html

***********************************************
Here's a site talking about feminism and Islam. It is rather interesting that many Muslim women's values actually line up with Christian women's, despite our efforts to villify them for their lack of freedom.

http://www.jannah.org/sisters/feminism.html

Jehan Sedat had a good discussion of feminism and Islam in her book, My Hope For Peace.

On a funny and almost unrelated note, I read Jehan Sadat's book, which of course held Anwar Sadat up as the best Arab leader in history, right before reading Kai Bird's Mandelbaum Gate. Apparently, Bird is a big Nasser fan. That was interesting.

Back to Islamic feminism...two NPR pieces, probably inspired by France's move to try and ban the veil:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126309699

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-07-13/banning-veil

The Stuff Conspiracy Theories Are Made Of

Both of these have probably been the subject of exaggeration, urban legend and frantic mass email forwarding. Both bother me.

The first is really a near miss. There were some other issues involved and the issue was resolved favorably. I'd still put it in this category.

The second is for real, for real. Big Brother- and not the TV show. Unbelievable, really. But true. It involves anti-war protesters, so I doubt anyone's going to care much, except to poke fun or rant about how much they "whine".

***
Religious Freedom?

This was referenced in a (rather conservative) religious publication I get and I heard it in the news, so I decided to look into it more. It was disconcerting to say the least if it was as it sounded at first…

Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522637,00.html?test=latestnews


While googling, I found the snopes.com entry. It doesn’t dispute this (listed as partially true), but does provide extra details regarding a car of a visitor of a neighbor being dinged by a study attendee and makes note of the results- they are allowed to hold studies. The study leader paid for it, but maybe the neighbor and his friend still held a grudge? Anyway, it appears it wasn’t necessarily as all about religion as Fox News painted it. Not that it’s not worrisome to entertain the thought of police crackdowns on religious practice in this country. I just don’t think it was happening this time.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/biblestudy.asp

It is not clear to me whether this land use and religious assembly law has more to do with religion or number of people. If it has purely to do with having 10 people for a weekly event at a home that grows to 1000 and being able to circumvent the freedom of religion claim that could be used to circumvent fire codes and a ton of other safety and logistical nightmares such a group converging on one home creates, then the law makes sense. But if it is unnecessarily restrictive for religious groups compared to other groups (given that other groups can’t cite freedom of religion), then we need to take a look at it. Other groups could cite freedom to assemble… I don’t know.

An apology from the county. I looked for it on Fox, since that was my first source, but I don’t know that they bothered to cover the result of the situation. Apologies are boring, I guess.

http://www.10news.com/news/19650728/detail.html

It also sounds like the "pastor" was the source of confusion about where the controversy is- parking or religion.

In this article, he talks about the parking and thinks it sparked an official complaint: http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/30/1n30bible00100-county-wont-force-permit-bible-stud/
This source is a reference from the snopes site.

In a response to truthorfiction.com, he said parking was definitely not the issue- it was definitely religious freedom.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/Pastor-Dave-San-Diego-Permit.htm

Maybe his Fox experience convinced him it was more of a freedom of religion thing or maybe he just had time to think about it and reconsidered. It seems he changed his story either way, though.

It's definitely got legs with email, though! We'll be seeing this freedom of religion scare, minus the resolution where they are allowed to have the Bible studies without paying fines and minus the apology, for years to come.

The letters collected via email are here:
San Diego County Officials told pastor that he can not hold a Bible study in his home without a permit -Truth! but Decision Reversed!

San Diego County officials barred a couple from holding Bible study sessions in their home without a “major land use” permit.

*** *** *** *** ***
Government infiltrating and spying on anti-war groups

I hate to post so many Democracy Now links, but they do such a great job of summarizing the issues and asking questions and getting guests you won’t see on the big networks.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/28/broadcast_exclusive_declassified_docs_reveal_military

Basically, this ex-military guy informs on innocent civilian protest and activist groups by infiltrating the group and asking police for info on specific groups-Students for a Democratic Society and Port Militarization Resistance. The reason for the spying, as I understand it, is not because they have done anything illegal or are putting people in danger, but they speak out against various government actions.

This is a WA site; I think it happened there.
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/8882/34/

I don’t know anything about this site. I don’t know who is responsible for it, but it’s probably not the military or John himself.
http://www.johntowery.com/

This side is rightly complaining of possible rights and law violations, but there is something wrong with someone owning your name in this way… ☺

*** *** *** *** ***